Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronepsis

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 Dragon deities. —Darkwind (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronepsis

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question You claim that the article is mostly plot details. Where are the plot details you speak of? I see only a general description of the deity. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description of a fictional character is plot detail, because the character and its in-unverse life/appearance/etc is fictional, thus part of the plot. Fictional elements do not exist independently of their fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of a work of fiction is not equal to the whole work of fiction itself, it is simply the sequence of events within a work of fiction. See Plot (narrative) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries to gain a better understanding of the concepts of plot and plot summary. In this article, there is no plot summary, there is only character description. My question still stands. --Mark viking (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to exposition (what "introduces all of the main characters in the story. It shows how they relate to one another, what their goals and motivations are, and the kind of person they are"), which is also part of the plot.Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries also covers "character descriptions or biographies".Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dragon deities, where Chronepsis already has an entry. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon deities. This does not seem notable, and I can not find reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that loves this kind of trivia. With regard to Wikipedia, there are no independent third party sources, so per [[WP:GNG| the options are delete or if there is suitable content and a suitable target, merge. Merging only primary sourced content generally just transfers the issues from this article to the target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as redirect/merge to Dragon deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2013 (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.