- 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. Randykitty ( talk) 13:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Jallarzi Sallavarian
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jallarzi Sallavarian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character from Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No secondary sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ ( talk) 21:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Gamecruft. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As the nom stated, there are no secondary sources included in the article, and I have not been able to find any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources upon searching for them. It could possibly be redirected to Greyhawk, where she is briefly mentioned, but as there is nothing here but in-universe plot information, there is nothing that should really be merged there. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to more comprehensive topic such as
Greyhawk where the fictional character seems significant. No need to delete information for those seeking it. This might not need a stand-alone page, but destroying the info isn't appropriate, either. Also, there's a massive recent glut of numerous D&D-related articles being slapped with AFDs or PRODs and voted for deletion using derogatory and inflammatory language (visible
here), resulting in Redirection within hours without any consensus or discussion. (and, yes, I realize they don't have to have permission, but, it's still gives the appearance of lack of regard). (Please note: language such as "Fancruft" or "gamecruft" should be avoided in the future; as definied by WP "... regarded as pejorative and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.") -
IcarusATB (
talk)
04:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Icarus: I am very happy to argue to keep articles that should be kept (and do), and to merge content when there is an appropriate target (and do). Some content has to go, though - huge long plot summaries, or discussion of exceedingly minor characters, game-guide material, excessive use of non-free content... The problem with D&D (and Transformers, and Tolkein...) coverage has been clear for years, and "high-level" discussions have had limited impact. This steady stream of deletion nominations really seems to be the appropriate and effective way forward.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do think you're right about dismissive or "battleground" language, though. Do please call me out if you think I'm being needlessly unpleasant. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Icarus: I am very happy to argue to keep articles that should be kept (and do), and to merge content when there is an appropriate target (and do). Some content has to go, though - huge long plot summaries, or discussion of exceedingly minor characters, game-guide material, excessive use of non-free content... The problem with D&D (and Transformers, and Tolkein...) coverage has been clear for years, and "high-level" discussions have had limited impact. This steady stream of deletion nominations really seems to be the appropriate and effective way forward.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails to establish notability. The idea that all fictional information must be retained is faulty. This is a general encyclopedia, so there is a limit to the depth it can cover in terms of pure fiction. TTN ( talk) 12:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Circle of Eight. I just see non-merge-worthy PLOT with a strong IN-UNIVERSE focus, e.g. the "History" section is about the character's fictional history rather than her publication and creation history. – sgeureka t• c 08:51, 20 December 2019 (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. Randykitty ( talk) 13:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Jallarzi Sallavarian
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jallarzi Sallavarian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character from Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No secondary sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ ( talk) 21:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Gamecruft. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As the nom stated, there are no secondary sources included in the article, and I have not been able to find any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources upon searching for them. It could possibly be redirected to Greyhawk, where she is briefly mentioned, but as there is nothing here but in-universe plot information, there is nothing that should really be merged there. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to more comprehensive topic such as
Greyhawk where the fictional character seems significant. No need to delete information for those seeking it. This might not need a stand-alone page, but destroying the info isn't appropriate, either. Also, there's a massive recent glut of numerous D&D-related articles being slapped with AFDs or PRODs and voted for deletion using derogatory and inflammatory language (visible
here), resulting in Redirection within hours without any consensus or discussion. (and, yes, I realize they don't have to have permission, but, it's still gives the appearance of lack of regard). (Please note: language such as "Fancruft" or "gamecruft" should be avoided in the future; as definied by WP "... regarded as pejorative and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.") -
IcarusATB (
talk)
04:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Icarus: I am very happy to argue to keep articles that should be kept (and do), and to merge content when there is an appropriate target (and do). Some content has to go, though - huge long plot summaries, or discussion of exceedingly minor characters, game-guide material, excessive use of non-free content... The problem with D&D (and Transformers, and Tolkein...) coverage has been clear for years, and "high-level" discussions have had limited impact. This steady stream of deletion nominations really seems to be the appropriate and effective way forward.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do think you're right about dismissive or "battleground" language, though. Do please call me out if you think I'm being needlessly unpleasant. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Icarus: I am very happy to argue to keep articles that should be kept (and do), and to merge content when there is an appropriate target (and do). Some content has to go, though - huge long plot summaries, or discussion of exceedingly minor characters, game-guide material, excessive use of non-free content... The problem with D&D (and Transformers, and Tolkein...) coverage has been clear for years, and "high-level" discussions have had limited impact. This steady stream of deletion nominations really seems to be the appropriate and effective way forward.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails to establish notability. The idea that all fictional information must be retained is faulty. This is a general encyclopedia, so there is a limit to the depth it can cover in terms of pure fiction. TTN ( talk) 12:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Circle of Eight. I just see non-merge-worthy PLOT with a strong IN-UNIVERSE focus, e.g. the "History" section is about the character's fictional history rather than her publication and creation history. – sgeureka t• c 08:51, 20 December 2019 (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.