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 merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). There is a clear consensus that this is not a notable topic. However, those advocating delete have not explained why a selective merge is not an appropriate
alternative to deletion. As such, and because this is
not a vote but an exercise in consensus there is a consensus to address this non-notable topic by merging it into another article.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:ALLPLOT and failure of
WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Trivial, in-universe list. Notability for the group is not established.
TTN (
talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - The individual gods listed here are not individually notable. Searching for sources discussing the concept of Halfling Deities as a group turns up nothing in-depth in any kind of reliable, secondary sources, thus causing the list to fail
WP:LISTN.
Rorshacma (
talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The elements do not need to be independently notable if the grouping is notable, which needs to be shown by having reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic as a group. There do not appear to be any such sources for this list topic.
Rorshacma (
talk) 03:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- More excessive fancruft sourced mostly to primary sources. Aside from the notability arguments outlined above, this content puts way too much
undue weight on fictional trivia. I suggest Wikia would be a better home for this type of content. And I'm not sure about the accusations of bad faith here: were I to suggest some editors derived malicious pleasure from diluting Wikipedia's useful content with sewage or burying it under a mountain of trash I'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI for sure.
ReykYO! 15:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am sure that some people create hoax articles, attack pages, and the like for fun to upset other people, but although I can only speak for myself, I doubt very much that people create articles on fictional topics with the intention of irritating other people.
BOZ (
talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
And I'm sure that few people nominate stuff for deletion because they think deleting stuff is fun, yet accusing people of that is just fine and dandy.
ReykYO! 15:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I can't speak on the motivations of people who like to delete stuff because they think it's fun, but they've certainly been having a good time lately.
BOZ (
talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I mean, I get the good feeling of cleaning out a musty old attic full of fifty years of clutter, but the core motivation is narrowing down the scope of non-notable topics so notable topics can actually flourish. See
Category:Video game characters and
Category:Anime and manga characters. Compared to ten years ago, you can look at the grand majority of articles and see proper sources. There might still be some problem articles, but it's night and day compared to the hundreds upon hundreds of articles there previously. Without an effort from those project spaces, there is no way they'd be in that state today.
TTN (
talk) 16:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
WP:LISTPURP and
WP:CLN. Per the article talk page, at least 5 articles have already been merged here as the result of previous merge/delete discussions. While the individual entries themselves may not be deserving of their own articles, inclusion in a list such as this one should not be an issue. If the problem here - as it certainly seems to be, based on the arguments supplied for deletion supplied above - is the content of the article (in other words,
WP:FANCRUFT), then edit the article. AFD is not cleanup. And
WP:FANCRUFT is another term for
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate argument for deletion.
Vulcan's Forge (
talk) 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No, FANCRUFT is another term for
WP:GNG. The content of this and like articles has no independent, reliable sources, that's all there is to it. You want to keep this? Please find a proper scholarly analysis of the significance of D&D halfing deities. I won't be holding my breath, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.
Kacper IV (
talk) 12:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons).
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:19, 6 December 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.
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 merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). There is a clear consensus that this is not a notable topic. However, those advocating delete have not explained why a selective merge is not an appropriate
alternative to deletion. As such, and because this is
not a vote but an exercise in consensus there is a consensus to address this non-notable topic by merging it into another article.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:ALLPLOT and failure of
WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Trivial, in-universe list. Notability for the group is not established.
TTN (
talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - The individual gods listed here are not individually notable. Searching for sources discussing the concept of Halfling Deities as a group turns up nothing in-depth in any kind of reliable, secondary sources, thus causing the list to fail
WP:LISTN.
Rorshacma (
talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The elements do not need to be independently notable if the grouping is notable, which needs to be shown by having reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic as a group. There do not appear to be any such sources for this list topic.
Rorshacma (
talk) 03:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- More excessive fancruft sourced mostly to primary sources. Aside from the notability arguments outlined above, this content puts way too much
undue weight on fictional trivia. I suggest Wikia would be a better home for this type of content. And I'm not sure about the accusations of bad faith here: were I to suggest some editors derived malicious pleasure from diluting Wikipedia's useful content with sewage or burying it under a mountain of trash I'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI for sure.
ReykYO! 15:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am sure that some people create hoax articles, attack pages, and the like for fun to upset other people, but although I can only speak for myself, I doubt very much that people create articles on fictional topics with the intention of irritating other people.
BOZ (
talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
And I'm sure that few people nominate stuff for deletion because they think deleting stuff is fun, yet accusing people of that is just fine and dandy.
ReykYO! 15:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I can't speak on the motivations of people who like to delete stuff because they think it's fun, but they've certainly been having a good time lately.
BOZ (
talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I mean, I get the good feeling of cleaning out a musty old attic full of fifty years of clutter, but the core motivation is narrowing down the scope of non-notable topics so notable topics can actually flourish. See
Category:Video game characters and
Category:Anime and manga characters. Compared to ten years ago, you can look at the grand majority of articles and see proper sources. There might still be some problem articles, but it's night and day compared to the hundreds upon hundreds of articles there previously. Without an effort from those project spaces, there is no way they'd be in that state today.
TTN (
talk) 16:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
WP:LISTPURP and
WP:CLN. Per the article talk page, at least 5 articles have already been merged here as the result of previous merge/delete discussions. While the individual entries themselves may not be deserving of their own articles, inclusion in a list such as this one should not be an issue. If the problem here - as it certainly seems to be, based on the arguments supplied for deletion supplied above - is the content of the article (in other words,
WP:FANCRUFT), then edit the article. AFD is not cleanup. And
WP:FANCRUFT is another term for
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate argument for deletion.
Vulcan's Forge (
talk) 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No, FANCRUFT is another term for
WP:GNG. The content of this and like articles has no independent, reliable sources, that's all there is to it. You want to keep this? Please find a proper scholarly analysis of the significance of D&D halfing deities. I won't be holding my breath, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.
Kacper IV (
talk) 12:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons).
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:19, 6 December 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.