Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystra (goddess)

Mystra (goddess)

Non-notable fictional character. This article is written in-universe. The character is not covered by substantial primary sources, so creating a sustainable wikipedia article will be impossible. Mikeblas 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Lots of good information here, it just needs to be dramatically cleaned up to be presented from an out-of-universe pov Maelwys 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another nomination of a quite notable (though fictional) character. A Google search for the specific search object "Mystra D&D" returns 19,000 hits. While this is not a sure-fire test of notability, there's a lower-bound there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's below 19K on a very limiting text string. These are becoming quite routine, and nom. might do well to try to dialogue with members of this project before sending the next bale to AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Google hits mean absolutely nothing because there is no guarantee that anything list is reliable or provides significant coverage. Significant coverage is a part of being notable and Google hits can't demonstrate that because it doesn't matter how much of the text is actually devoted to the topic if it's mentioned at least once. Jay32183 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google hits do not mean "absolutely nothing;" they are simply not a guaranteed measure, which is what I said in my previous statement. No doubt, a lot (maybe even the majority) of those hits are fansites and forums, but it strains credibility to imagine for a moment that the many thousands of pages mentioning this character (remember, the 19,000 was only from one specific search term) do so only once or in passing. As I pointed out, there's a lower bound somewhere. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are completely meaningless!! Fiond reliable sources or you have no point. Jay32183 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... your statement "Google hits are completely meaningless!!!" links to a page that says, and I quote, "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is." That is, admittedly, used in a cautionary statement about their usefulness, (i.e., "no guarantee," which I've been saying all along anyway) but your choice of wiki-link was, well, disingenuous. I don't have any particular interest in this topic, so someone else will have to take up your challenge to WP:PROVEIT, but to say (however loudly) that this character has no notability is just silly. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate notability you need the guarantee. A subject is presumed notable when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That has not been demonstrated in this case, therefore, the article should be deleted. Jay32183 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no; to carefully read the WP:N guideline, (and yes, it's a guideline) we find, "secondary sources [...] provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." In other words, Notability is not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be; several factors must be taken into account. A large amount of primary sourcing (and there are, indeed, such sources, namely the multiple books in which I believe this character appears) contributes a great deal toward depth of coverage and quality. I know you like the WP:PROVEIT button, but if your argument is about the "notability" of Mystra, there's some flexibility allowed, supported by strong precedent, that relegates your "the article should be deleted" position to a matter of opinion rather than policy. For the record, I think your opinion has merit as a general rule. I just happen to disagree with it in this particular case. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue isn't the "multiple" part, it's the "significant coverage" part. There is no significant coverage beyond plot summary, WP:PLOT. We don't disagree, you are wrong. Jay32183 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no... "plot summary" has nothing to do with character descriptions, and if you think I'm "wrong," then of course we disagree. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character descriptions are plot summaries if they can be sourced to just the story. It's a plot summary with a character specific slant. There needs to be real world information, and there needs to be sources for that information. No evidence for such sources existing has been provided. Disagreements are about opinions. I am not disagreeing with an opinion you have, I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect. Jay32183 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm disagreeing with you about that :) A plot summary is (...wait for it now...) a summary of a plot in a work of fiction. A character description, particularly when featured in more than one plot, is not a "plot summary." I'm just giving you definitions, and of course you're quite free to disagree with these particular facts. You can take it, you can leave it; it's not going to change the consensus that is being quite reasonably sustained against a small group of 3 or 4 editors who robotically seek out and vote "delete" regarding works like this. Since we're hardly talking about the subject of this article anymore, I'm just going to leave it here... but I wonder if you're going to learn anything from the continuing keep results or if you're just going to keep on plowing ahead. Time will tell. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you call it a plot summary or not. There is no real world context in the article, and there never will be because there aren't any sources. The reason all of the pages get deleted is that they are violation of every one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Try reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:FIVE, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF rather than making up your own rules in an AFD. Jay32183 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, this is not something I'm going to argue with you about, because you're ripe for a soapbox at this point... but I am curious about something you just said. What are "all these pages" that you think are being deleted? As far as I can see, the fantasy articles routinely nominated by this particular nominator are almost as routinely kept, not deleted (I mean, seriously, the guy couldn't even see the problem with nominating Rincewind for AfD!). If I thought it'd make a difference to the agenda here, I would supply a large number of examples, but since we are assigning homework to each other, first let me point out that I never said there weren't any sources (and I have no intention of conceding that ridiculous point) and second I'd like you to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing me with someone else -- I didn't nominate Rincewind for AfD. -- Mikeblas 16:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually. I'm talking about this statement here. I know you didn't make the nomination. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't have a valid reason to keep this article. You are hurting Wikipedia by being unwilling to delete unsourced articles. Jay32183 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, friend, it's okay to disagree about content in AfDs. It happens every day, but you're inching closer and closer to the WP:CIVIL line (specifically the rudeness example) by your statements that I am "hurting" Wikipedia by opposing your view, (the sky is not going to fall if you don't get your way) and more obviously that I "should not be contributing to Wikipedia" in another AfD in which we're both involved. Let's keep this about content, and if we have nothing further to say about that, let's keep it to ourselves, shall we? ◄Zahakiel ► 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources to establish notability, that means the subject does not get an article. There is no opinion there. There is a fact and a logical conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to keep the article, unless you start talking about things other than the content, which don't matter. It doesn't matter that people put in effort, it doesn't matter how important the character is to the plot, and it doesn't matter how many people find the information interesting. Take advantage of Wikia rather than trying to make Wikipedia a fan site. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as angrily written directly above. Find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (and, also, not just some website) if you wish to demonstrate notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of references, more will be found, character spans multiple books. The article needs clean up, not deletion. Or is Wikipedia running out of space that the handfull of K this article is using up? Web Warlock 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unfortunately, all the references in the article are primary sources --they're from TSR and WoTC. It's substantial, verifiable secondary sources which make a subject notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Mikeblas 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one that I didn't even use a search engine for: [1].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's another from Stanford University: [2].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither appears to be a reliable source. The first doesn't seem to exhibit much editorial control from its submitters, although it does have more control than a wiki. Although the second one is hosted on the Stanford University servers, it is a person website of either a student or faculty memeber. It is self published, not actually controlled by the university. They don't comply with WP:RS. Jay32183 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zahakiel and WebWarlock. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the well-organized article does contain references and concerns a character from a notable and influential game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what matters and you are well aware of that. Jay32183 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]