- 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. Sandstein 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
List of Dragonlance creatures
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of Dragonlance creatures ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Overly in-depth plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. This information belongs on Fandom. Dragonlance#Setting at best needs a paragraph or two on the topic per WP:WAF, but I don't see anything currently worth merging. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect/Light Merge to Dragonlance#World - Entirely in-universe plot summary, almost completely referenced to primary sources. The one secondary source is only being used to support the statement that "The dragons of Dragonlance appear much as their counterparts in other Dungeons & Dragons worlds", which is not much to establish notability for this list. Searching for additional sources discussing the overall concept of creatures or races specific to Dragonlance is not turning up much in reliable, secondary sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The main article on the setting does already briefly cover some of the races/creatures unique to Dragonlance (i.e. Draconians, Kender, etc.), but if someone wanted to expand it slightly with some of the material here, that would probably be fine. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. List of mostly non-notable characters. The ones with articles can be put in a See also at Dragonlance. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 19:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep based on sources added to the article, or at worst Merge to Dragonlance#World as per above, per WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as failing multiple fundamental policies. Articles are WP:NOT#PLOT details that have been WP:SYNTHesized into an article by editorial observation. Dragonlance#World would be an appropriate place to cover a summary of any creatures that are highly significant to the fiction, and I would accept a summary and merge if it helps produce a consensus. Shooterwalker ( talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as mostly non-notable characters that don't pass the WP:GNG. Some of these have notable articles and agree with some editors that we could add these see also in the main Dragonlance article. Jontesta ( talk) 20:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, a massive list of mostly non-notable characters, sourced essentially exclusively to primary sources, that fails WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT. I am not seeing anything of value to merge, and the article title is not a plausible redirect. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Fancruft, WP:NOTPLOT // Timothy :: talk 02:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is no recovering this article, it is the fancruftiest of Wikia-tier fancruft and belongs in a game guide. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to some generic list of D&D creatures which will likely survive longer. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dear
Piotrus, the article now contains some secondary source commentary on intelligent species/races in Dragonlance. In my opinion that would not readily fit to either of the two (?) D&D monster summary articles, because those don't deal specifically with the "intelligent" species. If there was a merge and/or redirect,
Dragonlance or even
Dungeons & Dragons controversies would fit better, or maybe
Dungeons & Dragons races, which, wouldn't you know, was
deleted without ever finding or considering the secondary source used here.
Daranios (
talk)
12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @
Daranios: This is
good expansion, but I am not convinced we need this big fancrufty list that follows. The content you have added is perhaps the first serious treatment of the topic (with reliable sources), but it is brief enough that it can be merged to the main article about this ficitonal setting. We don't need a list of fancruft about (random pick from the middle of the article) 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)' and so on. What reliable source discusses them? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
04:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ Piotrus: Thanks for explaining.
- First, if that is your opinion, and if you believe in policies like WP:ATD, wouldn't that mean to change the vote from delete to merge?
- Second, thanks for suggesting the example of 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)'. These are indeed treated in secondary (scholarly) sources [1], [2] (a little), [3]/ [4]; this review collection also characterizes them. It's not a lot, but just the coverage in secondary sources that makes sense within a list rather than a standalone article!
- So I think this topic is still underestimated because the
WP:BEFORE search is so tedious if one takes the individual entries into account. What do you think?
Daranios (
talk)
15:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- HAve you actually read any of those sources?
This, for example, is just a one sentence mention in passing. Same for
[5].
[6] is just a copy of one of those article. While I have objection to the merge of the few sentences you added earlier, those new sources about 'races' are just mention in passing, neither is notabe, and neither seems to focus on the list of Dragonlance races as a set worth of analyzing. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Piotrus, did you mean, that you have no objections to merging the few earlier sentences? (I have added one more detail from another RS since.) If so, why do you still officially object by voting "delete"?
- I have read the corresponding sections of the sources. If you look again, I did not propose that these are about Dragonlance races as a whole. They are about the one example that you suggested. I also don't suggest they are enough for a stand-alone article on gully dwarves. But they are enough to write a short section about them in a list, based on secondary sources. That's one purpose of lists, right? (I also was aware that the two different sources by Garthoff you critized are, in that section, copies of one another; that's why I've marked them with a "/". Sorry that that wasn't clearer.) Daranios ( talk) 11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- HAve you actually read any of those sources?
This, for example, is just a one sentence mention in passing. Same for
[5].
[6] is just a copy of one of those article. While I have objection to the merge of the few sentences you added earlier, those new sources about 'races' are just mention in passing, neither is notabe, and neither seems to focus on the list of Dragonlance races as a set worth of analyzing. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @
Daranios: This is
good expansion, but I am not convinced we need this big fancrufty list that follows. The content you have added is perhaps the first serious treatment of the topic (with reliable sources), but it is brief enough that it can be merged to the main article about this ficitonal setting. We don't need a list of fancruft about (random pick from the middle of the article) 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)' and so on. What reliable source discusses them? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
04:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dear
Piotrus, the article now contains some secondary source commentary on intelligent species/races in Dragonlance. In my opinion that would not readily fit to either of the two (?) D&D monster summary articles, because those don't deal specifically with the "intelligent" species. If there was a merge and/or redirect,
Dragonlance or even
Dungeons & Dragons controversies would fit better, or maybe
Dungeons & Dragons races, which, wouldn't you know, was
deleted without ever finding or considering the secondary source used here.
Daranios (
talk)
12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Dragonlance as per Rorshacma and BOZ. There are two secondary source in the article, and I've not seen any secondary source to make the topic overall notable. On the other hand the topic and a number of individual to entries are treated in some form in secondary source. So a short form of the current content should be preserved so that it can be made into something worthwhile with these source.- Keep and possible rename, or in the worst case merge: The article currently has a disproportionately large amount of plot-summary and primary sourced content. But the topic, intelligent species in Dragonlance, is treated in at least one secondary source, Race and Popular Fantasy Literature: Habits of Whiteness, directly and in some detail. There are also a number of secondary sources about the individual entries, and this article is and has been a merge target for a number of articles with a coverage threshold below a separate article, like Draconian, or the currently discussed Kender (Dragonlance). Lastly, a number of the listed entries have related articles, another reason for a list to exist. That together in my opinion makes the article worth keeping, though I am not sure if "creatures" is the best description. Even if this is not seen as meeting WP:LISTN, there are now parts worth preserving. Daranios ( talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Examples of secondary sources I've found so far: Overall topic: [7], [8]; Dragons: [9], [10], [11] Draconians: [12], [13]; Kender [14]; Elves: [15] (very short but with analysis), [16]; Gully dwarves: [17], [18], [19]/ [20], [21]
- Daranios ( talk) 14:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There's now some non-plot content based on secondary sources. I would like to add some more in the future if I get the chance. So I ask all who have given deletion vote based on "there are no secondary source/there is only-plot summary" - and the closer - to take that into consideration! Daranios ( talk) 19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, article is still a massive conglomerate of in-universe information, no evidence that this needs to exist and even if any information is useful there is no chance it deserves a standalone list. My vote stands. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 12:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand the standpoint that there is too much in-universe information here. But "if any information is useful", why should it be deleted rather than merged? Daranios ( talk) 20:49, 7 October 2020 (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. Sandstein 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
List of Dragonlance creatures
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of Dragonlance creatures ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Overly in-depth plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. This information belongs on Fandom. Dragonlance#Setting at best needs a paragraph or two on the topic per WP:WAF, but I don't see anything currently worth merging. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect/Light Merge to Dragonlance#World - Entirely in-universe plot summary, almost completely referenced to primary sources. The one secondary source is only being used to support the statement that "The dragons of Dragonlance appear much as their counterparts in other Dungeons & Dragons worlds", which is not much to establish notability for this list. Searching for additional sources discussing the overall concept of creatures or races specific to Dragonlance is not turning up much in reliable, secondary sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The main article on the setting does already briefly cover some of the races/creatures unique to Dragonlance (i.e. Draconians, Kender, etc.), but if someone wanted to expand it slightly with some of the material here, that would probably be fine. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. List of mostly non-notable characters. The ones with articles can be put in a See also at Dragonlance. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 19:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep based on sources added to the article, or at worst Merge to Dragonlance#World as per above, per WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as failing multiple fundamental policies. Articles are WP:NOT#PLOT details that have been WP:SYNTHesized into an article by editorial observation. Dragonlance#World would be an appropriate place to cover a summary of any creatures that are highly significant to the fiction, and I would accept a summary and merge if it helps produce a consensus. Shooterwalker ( talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as mostly non-notable characters that don't pass the WP:GNG. Some of these have notable articles and agree with some editors that we could add these see also in the main Dragonlance article. Jontesta ( talk) 20:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, a massive list of mostly non-notable characters, sourced essentially exclusively to primary sources, that fails WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT. I am not seeing anything of value to merge, and the article title is not a plausible redirect. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Fancruft, WP:NOTPLOT // Timothy :: talk 02:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is no recovering this article, it is the fancruftiest of Wikia-tier fancruft and belongs in a game guide. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to some generic list of D&D creatures which will likely survive longer. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dear
Piotrus, the article now contains some secondary source commentary on intelligent species/races in Dragonlance. In my opinion that would not readily fit to either of the two (?) D&D monster summary articles, because those don't deal specifically with the "intelligent" species. If there was a merge and/or redirect,
Dragonlance or even
Dungeons & Dragons controversies would fit better, or maybe
Dungeons & Dragons races, which, wouldn't you know, was
deleted without ever finding or considering the secondary source used here.
Daranios (
talk)
12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @
Daranios: This is
good expansion, but I am not convinced we need this big fancrufty list that follows. The content you have added is perhaps the first serious treatment of the topic (with reliable sources), but it is brief enough that it can be merged to the main article about this ficitonal setting. We don't need a list of fancruft about (random pick from the middle of the article) 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)' and so on. What reliable source discusses them? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
04:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ Piotrus: Thanks for explaining.
- First, if that is your opinion, and if you believe in policies like WP:ATD, wouldn't that mean to change the vote from delete to merge?
- Second, thanks for suggesting the example of 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)'. These are indeed treated in secondary (scholarly) sources [1], [2] (a little), [3]/ [4]; this review collection also characterizes them. It's not a lot, but just the coverage in secondary sources that makes sense within a list rather than a standalone article!
- So I think this topic is still underestimated because the
WP:BEFORE search is so tedious if one takes the individual entries into account. What do you think?
Daranios (
talk)
15:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- HAve you actually read any of those sources?
This, for example, is just a one sentence mention in passing. Same for
[5].
[6] is just a copy of one of those article. While I have objection to the merge of the few sentences you added earlier, those new sources about 'races' are just mention in passing, neither is notabe, and neither seems to focus on the list of Dragonlance races as a set worth of analyzing. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Piotrus, did you mean, that you have no objections to merging the few earlier sentences? (I have added one more detail from another RS since.) If so, why do you still officially object by voting "delete"?
- I have read the corresponding sections of the sources. If you look again, I did not propose that these are about Dragonlance races as a whole. They are about the one example that you suggested. I also don't suggest they are enough for a stand-alone article on gully dwarves. But they are enough to write a short section about them in a list, based on secondary sources. That's one purpose of lists, right? (I also was aware that the two different sources by Garthoff you critized are, in that section, copies of one another; that's why I've marked them with a "/". Sorry that that wasn't clearer.) Daranios ( talk) 11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- HAve you actually read any of those sources?
This, for example, is just a one sentence mention in passing. Same for
[5].
[6] is just a copy of one of those article. While I have objection to the merge of the few sentences you added earlier, those new sources about 'races' are just mention in passing, neither is notabe, and neither seems to focus on the list of Dragonlance races as a set worth of analyzing. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @
Daranios: This is
good expansion, but I am not convinced we need this big fancrufty list that follows. The content you have added is perhaps the first serious treatment of the topic (with reliable sources), but it is brief enough that it can be merged to the main article about this ficitonal setting. We don't need a list of fancruft about (random pick from the middle of the article) 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)' and so on. What reliable source discusses them? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
04:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dear
Piotrus, the article now contains some secondary source commentary on intelligent species/races in Dragonlance. In my opinion that would not readily fit to either of the two (?) D&D monster summary articles, because those don't deal specifically with the "intelligent" species. If there was a merge and/or redirect,
Dragonlance or even
Dungeons & Dragons controversies would fit better, or maybe
Dungeons & Dragons races, which, wouldn't you know, was
deleted without ever finding or considering the secondary source used here.
Daranios (
talk)
12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Dragonlance as per Rorshacma and BOZ. There are two secondary source in the article, and I've not seen any secondary source to make the topic overall notable. On the other hand the topic and a number of individual to entries are treated in some form in secondary source. So a short form of the current content should be preserved so that it can be made into something worthwhile with these source.- Keep and possible rename, or in the worst case merge: The article currently has a disproportionately large amount of plot-summary and primary sourced content. But the topic, intelligent species in Dragonlance, is treated in at least one secondary source, Race and Popular Fantasy Literature: Habits of Whiteness, directly and in some detail. There are also a number of secondary sources about the individual entries, and this article is and has been a merge target for a number of articles with a coverage threshold below a separate article, like Draconian, or the currently discussed Kender (Dragonlance). Lastly, a number of the listed entries have related articles, another reason for a list to exist. That together in my opinion makes the article worth keeping, though I am not sure if "creatures" is the best description. Even if this is not seen as meeting WP:LISTN, there are now parts worth preserving. Daranios ( talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Examples of secondary sources I've found so far: Overall topic: [7], [8]; Dragons: [9], [10], [11] Draconians: [12], [13]; Kender [14]; Elves: [15] (very short but with analysis), [16]; Gully dwarves: [17], [18], [19]/ [20], [21]
- Daranios ( talk) 14:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There's now some non-plot content based on secondary sources. I would like to add some more in the future if I get the chance. So I ask all who have given deletion vote based on "there are no secondary source/there is only-plot summary" - and the closer - to take that into consideration! Daranios ( talk) 19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, article is still a massive conglomerate of in-universe information, no evidence that this needs to exist and even if any information is useful there is no chance it deserves a standalone list. My vote stands. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 12:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand the standpoint that there is too much in-universe information here. But "if any information is useful", why should it be deleted rather than merged? Daranios ( talk) 20:49, 7 October 2020 (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.