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 Keep two articles, no consensus on the others. This is a complex discussion, to the point that some people have suggested that it should be closed as WP:TRAINWRECK. Nevertheless, it seems like the consensus is strongly leaning towards the Dæmon and Dust articles meeting inclusion criteria owing to several sources which have been presented and only weakly contested (among other things "fancruft" is not a deletion reason). The list articles are more debatable as some people have skipped them and the discussion does not seem to have a clear consensus about whether they meet notability and forking guidelines mostly due to e.g concerns about whether the sources meet WP:SIGCOV criteria about primaryness and mentioning-in-passing and about whether the quality of the forked text actually justifies having them as separate articles. Also, a number of arguments are vague or not based in policy and guideline ("fancruft" is not a deletion guideline and "it's useful" or "other series have such lists as well" is not normally a sufficient reason to keep). Overall, it seems like the lists might benefit of dedicated discussion.

PS: I've replaced the asterisks in the list of nominated pages with colons as XFDCloser otherwise does not recognize them. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Races and creatures in His Dark Materials (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft. These are all fictional elements from the His Dark Materials novels and other media. They fail WP:GNG, because, while the novels, TV series and movie are notable, these elements aren't covered in third-party reliable sources to an extent that could be the basis for a standalone article. The articles also fail MOS:REALWORLD quite hard. Sandstein 07:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Also nominated:

Locations in His Dark Materials (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials#Settings. Goustien ( talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Dust (His Dark Materials) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials. Goustien ( talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Dæmon (His Dark Materials) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials#Dæmons. Goustien ( talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't have enough (or any) interest in the topic to do the WP:SOFIXIT myself, but I find these elements aren't covered in third-party reliable sources to an extent that could be the basis for a standalone article highly implausible. HDM is probably the single most heavily-discussed work of British fiction since The Lord of the Rings and just dropping "His Dark Materials" into Google Scholar brings up a raft of academic papers on the topic, including works specifically about the topics of these individual articles (e.g. Dust as an All-Inclusive, Multifunctional Metaphor in Philip Pullman's “His Dark Materials”). ‑  Iridescent 08:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep (all) Just writing "fancruft" in the nomination of any fictional series you don't like doesn't make it so. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• And just asserting that dislike is the reason for this nomination is not a reason to keep these articles. You do not address the actual reasons for deletion, namely, a lack of sufficient third-party sourcing, and an in-universe focus so severe a total rewrite would be needed. Sandstein 12:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• As Iridescent noted already, we're awash with serious study of Pullman. Already he's seen as being on a par for these works with Tolkien and CS Lewis. To dismiss this as mere "fancruft" shows that not only are you unaware of what is out there, you're also just being patronising for the hell of it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• No. I am intentionally patronising, but about the crufty content, not about the subject. I am aware that Pullman and his works are well covered. This does not mean that these particular subtopics are as well. At least judging by the articles, they are not. And it's up to those who want to keep them to establish the contrary. If there are enough academic studies of Pullman's Dust that we can write an article based on them, I'm all for somebody doing that. But this is just plot summary. Entirely worthless stuff, something for fan wikis. Sandstein 13:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• "At least judging by the articles, they are not. "

I can only hope you're not serious in that statement. Otherwise your understanding of WP:N is not at a level where you should be nominating anything. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

What Andy Dingley said. You've been an admin for thirteen years; that you apparently aren't familiar with one of Wikipedia's most basic principles is at minimum disturbing. ‑  Iridescent 16:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep — Even if these are not notable, the pages should have been nominated separately. 165.91.13.178 ( talk) 15:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Agreed. While some of these topics very likely aren't notable, bundling them all together like this was not really the best way to have done this. The topics are disparate enough that this could easily result in a WP:TRAINWRECK. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep all Daemon and Dust are notable on their own terms. Significant coverage of Daemon in RS includes [1] [2] [3]. Significant coverage of Dust in RS includes [4] [5] [6] [7]. These are just 3 unique examples for each topic (some of which also cover the other in significant detail) from just one database (JSTOR). I am confident if I searched other literary sources (e.g. Project Muse) more sourcing for these two topics could be found. As for Locations and Races/creatures even if not independently notable (and they might be I just haven't searched because of what I am about to write) I would suggest that they are policy compliant forks and not just fancraft. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• I am leaning toward keep give the above discussion, specifically Barkeep49, but I agree with Rorshacma that it would have been best to nominate these articles individually rather than bundle them together as one. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all For dust I found https://screenrant.com/his-dark-materials-mythology-daemons-dust-explained/ for the races I found https://nerdist.com/article/his-dark-materials-hbo-clans-institutions/ for the locations I found https://londonist.com/london/film/bbc-his-dark-materials and for the daemons this appears https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-11-11/his-dark-materials-daemon/ so keep them all. Google news search didn't take long to look over the results for each thing and then click something that seemed like significant coverage in a reliable sources. Dream Focus 02:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Dæmon (His Dark Materials) and add citations from appropriate sources; otherwise, reduce to what is justifiable and merge that to His_Dark_Materials#Dæmons, keeping a redirect. This combined discussion probably warrants a swift close, following which perhaps some of the pages might be re-nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all Barkeep49 has offered WP:RS and I echo the feelings of Andy D that this is not my area of interest so I am not the editor to fix it. The fact that all of the articles are bundled is also a reason I err on the side of Keep. Lightburst ( talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete all but Dæmon (His Dark Materials) and Dust (His Dark Materials (I abstain on those). I'd have to look into Dæmon one a bit more, but the threetwo others are pure fancruft and I don't see good sources (non-PRIMARY) that discuss them outside mentions in passing. Sadly, quality of arguments in discussions target by the rescue squadron and friends is rather problematic, and it's good to have an experienced admin look into this mess (see other entries in the fiction deletion sortlist, please). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Piotrus, I am curious what shortcomings you see in the sources I noted above for Dust. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Barkeep49 I believe that the editor who brings a source fourth should explain why the coverage in them is significant. You made an assertion that those sources discuss the topic in-depth, bit have not provided any analysis or quotations. I could just as well assert that those sources do not contain any in-depth discussion of the topic, just mentions in passing. Can you prove me wrong? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

    Well one of the articles is 22 pages entitled "Dialectical "Complexifications": The Centrality of Mary Malone, Dust, and the Mulefa in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials" so I'd have hoped that the GNG connection there would be obvious. But fair enough - besides that source see pages 422-3 for a discussion of how it relates to concepts in Milton and 431 for an endorsement of a blog post (which might fail selfcite) that discusses it further in [8]. See pages 273-74 for a comparison to concepts in Plato in [9], and as a central plot concept on page 72 of [10] but then goes on to note several other academic and formal writings including this on page 78. Most of these are too extensive to be quoted, hence the way that they satisfy GNG, and is why I had not done so in my original !vote. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

    • Barkeep49 Names can be misleading. I've seen articles or chapters that mention topic x in the name (or abstract) and never again. I cannot access the first article (my uni doesn't subscribe to JSTOR, and it's not even in Library Genesis). Without reading it I cannot assume that it discusses the subject, and with all due respect, neither should you (it is a good source to bring forth here, but an editor needs to provide an analysis before it is more than a 'google hit'). As for other sources, I am willing to AGF them and deter to your analysis that the concept of Dust is discussed in them in more than just passing, so I'll adjust my vote. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• WP:PAYWALL When someone puts up a solid 23 page academic paper about the topic, you can't simply reply, "I can't be bothered finding access to a service which exists to give free academic access to sources and is widely used, for free, by WP editors, so I'm just going to assume, against other editors, that it has nothing to do with the topic." That's some of our basic sourcing policy. Pullman is still relatively recent, compared to Tolkien or Carroll. Academic studies are out there, but they're not yet sitting for free on the shelves of every public library (although there's yet another route to free Jstor access). But that's no reason to claim that they can't exist. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment, apart from speculative content about purpose, meaning etc, the lists nominated do not need refs since the source is the book itself, to the same extent that a plot summary would be. I did a massive clean-up of 'fancrufty' material some years ago - it's possible/probable that some was missed. I believe both 'dust' and 'daemons' may still have WP:OR and may not be notable, but no source is required for purely factual material about creatures and/or locations since the source is the trilogy itself. Pincrete ( talk) 11:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials. Goustien ( talk) 01:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all given the existence of similar pages for the Harry Potter series, e.g. Magical creatures, Magical objects. gbrading ( ταlκ) 11:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge all. The informational content is fine, but the independent (literary arts analysis) sources aren't about the objects in the stories so much as the meaning of the stories themselves, and as such shouldn't be used to support separate articles about those elements. Furthermore, the sources put forth in this AfD discussion are not yet cited in the articles themselves, and aren't likely to be for the preceding reasons, so GNG isn't likely to be attained with them. EllenCT ( talk) 03:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

"sources aren't about the objects in the stories" Whilst that might be true for the more minor aspects, such as "Jordan College" or "Gyptians", that's certainly not the case for Dust or Daemons, the two major philosophical strands in Pullman's work. Those are exactly the things which are being written about in such depth.

Secondly, the idea that "sources at an AfD do not convey WP:N until such time as they're incoporated into the article text" is completely wrong, per our basic policies on GNG etc. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep (all). Merging is problematical. The pieces are already quite long (although some are barely sourced for now) But just writing "fancruft" in the nomination of any fictional series is another form of you don't like. Ipse dixit doesn't apply here. I endorse the reasoning of Andy Dingley, and will not further burden the discussion by repeating it again.

WP:Before should focus us on what the artciles may become, not what they are.

I see that this Saturday night massacre is well on its way to becoming the WP:Trainwreck earlier predicted. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I would also note WP:Not paper, and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge all to a new article I think a His Dark Materials universe page would make more sense than these disjointed concepts, after they are heavily pruned to remove any unreferenced material. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 15:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all I don't want to dig too deep in this set of topics as I'm watching the new adaptation and so am wary of spoilers. But it's clear that there is extensive scholarship and sources for this material and so the claim that it fails WP:GNG is false. The main page, His Dark Materials, is 68K as there are numerous works and adapations in a variety of media and so there's a lot of ground to cover. Spinoffs and splits are therefore sensible and any structuring or restructuring is just a matter of ordinary editing per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Deletion would be disruptive and so is not appropriate.

Another point. The readership of these pages is high as viewers of the new adaptation come to Wikipedia to understand its mysterious aspects like dust and the dæmons. So, there are thousands of readers every day but where are they in this discussion? All I'm seeing here are the usual suspects – fanatical insiders and veterans – and this demonstrates the extent to which AfD doesn't represent a true consensus of Wikipedia's users. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but most everyone is being shut out by a Magisterial process that gives them no voice. Tsk.

Andrew D. ( talk) 16:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The two lists at least. I won't bother to comment on the other two right now. The arguments that those are proper splits are ridiculous. WP:NOTPLOT is completely against that kind of content. These are lists of minutia that help nobody understand the context. Summary style content is king in fiction, and some people think that's impossible. Guess what? If the page is too long, then we simply don't need to cover the material unless backed by non-primary sources. I have never seen anyone actually argue why lists like these are necessary beyond pointless arguments like page views. Guess what? If you look at a specialized Wikia's views, they'll far surpass any page on Wikipedia. It's pointless to draw away views from useful information for this bare bones useless junk. Then there's the usual "there's sources because this is a popular series" arguments. The pages should not have been brought into existence without sources. If sources are actually abundant, we can try to imagine the articles' optimal states, but the promise of possible sources is just an excuse to let these linger. TTN ( talk) 12:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the lists (or renominate) I came here from a link at DRV. don't have much of an opinion on the other articles but sources at least appear to exist and I'm going to assume they're fine, but nobody has discussed sourcing for the Races and Creatures or Locations articles, which are incredibly poorly sourced on WP:GNG and flagrantly fail MOS:REALWORLD and listcruft guidelines. SportingFlyer T· C 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While I would have to be convinced of the value of standalone articles on most fictional elements, I just do not see a problem with non-fancrufty articles on major features and lists of more minor features from major works like these. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep due to usefulness of the material. There's no real reason/argument for deleting it. -- 131.123.51.67 ( talk) 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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.