- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Hobit, contact me when you want this article userfied. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dark elves in fiction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This... is bad. Dark elves are likely notable (although we don't seem to have an article, just a disambig?). They also don't exist outside fiction, so this is a fork of that (potential?) article. Unreferenced, too (well, it has two footnotes, one to a RPG book, and one to a shop selling RPG books, with the product's description). It is effectively a WP:ORish essay mixed with the WP:IPC/ MOS:POPCULT/ WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation in the form of list of media that mention the concept of dark elves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:TNT as a purely unencyclopedic article of original research. (Although since Dark Elves are already fictional, it doesn't make much sense anyway). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:TNT. I was thinking just based on the name that maybe a rename would be in order, but this entire article is like a problematic "in popular culture" section split off into its own article. The entire article is just a series of unsourced trivia about appearances of dark elves in various fictional properties. I think the article title "dark elves in fiction" is supposed to differentiate it from "dark elves in mythology" but it seems unnecessary. It's possible that this topic might be notable under a different name, but nothing about this iteration of the article is salvageable. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: as opposed to dark elves in reality? This subject is already covered at elves, and someone can expand on dark elves there once they find appropriate sources. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. I get the TNT arguments. But I actually think that with sourcing, some organizational moves and some more context, this could be a reasonable article on Dark Elves. The sourcing is trivial for almost everything in the article. keep Second choice: move to my user space. I was looking for something like this to work on over the break.
Hobit (
talk)
16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Decent sources:
[1] is basically what our article should look like (but with sources). It could be used as a source. There are also things like
[2] which have serious and good coverage ("Dark Elves" gets dozens of hits, I'd have to get this on interlibrary loan). Other academic sources that appear promising include:
[3],
[4],
[5]. So yeah, I think this is a fine starting point for a real article. With a rename it certainly meets WP:N. And while the existing text isn't great, there is a lot of useful stuff there.
Hobit (
talk)
16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to rewrite this now, be bold and go ahead an ping us when you think it's ready for a re-review. Otherwise, of course, I am totally fine with this being userfied in your space, to be restored when you finish said rewrite. The point is that the current state of the article is not acceptable (up to and including the very name). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ Hobit PS. Re Interlibrary loan - check Internet Archive library first, can save time sometimes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks however I'm not doing anything other than work and family for the next week or so. Hobit ( talk) 12:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Decent sources:
[1] is basically what our article should look like (but with sources). It could be used as a source. There are also things like
[2] which have serious and good coverage ("Dark Elves" gets dozens of hits, I'd have to get this on interlibrary loan). Other academic sources that appear promising include:
[3],
[4],
[5]. So yeah, I think this is a fine starting point for a real article. With a rename it certainly meets WP:N. And while the existing text isn't great, there is a lot of useful stuff there.
Hobit (
talk)
16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Hobit, contact me when you want this article userfied. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dark elves in fiction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This... is bad. Dark elves are likely notable (although we don't seem to have an article, just a disambig?). They also don't exist outside fiction, so this is a fork of that (potential?) article. Unreferenced, too (well, it has two footnotes, one to a RPG book, and one to a shop selling RPG books, with the product's description). It is effectively a WP:ORish essay mixed with the WP:IPC/ MOS:POPCULT/ WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation in the form of list of media that mention the concept of dark elves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:TNT as a purely unencyclopedic article of original research. (Although since Dark Elves are already fictional, it doesn't make much sense anyway). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:TNT. I was thinking just based on the name that maybe a rename would be in order, but this entire article is like a problematic "in popular culture" section split off into its own article. The entire article is just a series of unsourced trivia about appearances of dark elves in various fictional properties. I think the article title "dark elves in fiction" is supposed to differentiate it from "dark elves in mythology" but it seems unnecessary. It's possible that this topic might be notable under a different name, but nothing about this iteration of the article is salvageable. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: as opposed to dark elves in reality? This subject is already covered at elves, and someone can expand on dark elves there once they find appropriate sources. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. I get the TNT arguments. But I actually think that with sourcing, some organizational moves and some more context, this could be a reasonable article on Dark Elves. The sourcing is trivial for almost everything in the article. keep Second choice: move to my user space. I was looking for something like this to work on over the break.
Hobit (
talk)
16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Decent sources:
[1] is basically what our article should look like (but with sources). It could be used as a source. There are also things like
[2] which have serious and good coverage ("Dark Elves" gets dozens of hits, I'd have to get this on interlibrary loan). Other academic sources that appear promising include:
[3],
[4],
[5]. So yeah, I think this is a fine starting point for a real article. With a rename it certainly meets WP:N. And while the existing text isn't great, there is a lot of useful stuff there.
Hobit (
talk)
16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to rewrite this now, be bold and go ahead an ping us when you think it's ready for a re-review. Otherwise, of course, I am totally fine with this being userfied in your space, to be restored when you finish said rewrite. The point is that the current state of the article is not acceptable (up to and including the very name). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ Hobit PS. Re Interlibrary loan - check Internet Archive library first, can save time sometimes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks however I'm not doing anything other than work and family for the next week or so. Hobit ( talk) 12:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Decent sources:
[1] is basically what our article should look like (but with sources). It could be used as a source. There are also things like
[2] which have serious and good coverage ("Dark Elves" gets dozens of hits, I'd have to get this on interlibrary loan). Other academic sources that appear promising include:
[3],
[4],
[5]. So yeah, I think this is a fine starting point for a real article. With a rename it certainly meets WP:N. And while the existing text isn't great, there is a lot of useful stuff there.
Hobit (
talk)
16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.