Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharizdun (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 List of Greyhawk deities. The concern that sourcing is self-published and/or insufficiently independent was not effectively refuted. While there were assertions that SIGCOV reliable sourcing should exist, no specific examples were cited, nor a consensus reached that they might exist. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tharizdun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy We do :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AD&D module WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun published 1982 originated the fictional deity, making it more familiar in D&D than most. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is WP:SIGCOV level coverage in secondary sources: the refs alluded to by Jclemens, but I also think the Oerth Journal sources can merit mentioning, with the caveat of appropriate weighting and attention to NPOV as per WP:UNDUE. If there are issues with that now, then we can and should fix it as per WP:FAILN as an alternative to deletion. I also prefer keeping the article as opposed to a merge on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS grounds and as per WP:NOPAGE: it is impractical to collect the information into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 05:53, 17 April 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tharizdun_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1287142212"