- 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 No consensus to delete. Obviously, the delete option is not preferred here however members of the Wikiprojects can still discussed on where it can be redirected or keep entirely although the redirect arguments appear stronger, I will let the members of Wiki Greyhawk decide where it can be redirected and info is still available for now in case some info merging is needed.--JForget 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Empire of Iuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
In universe plot summary about a fictional empire with no claim to notability. The following fictional locations from The World of Greyhawk RPG are included:
- Baklunish Basin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bandit Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bissel (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Land of Black Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bright Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bronzewood Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
None of these articles are backed up by independent sources, context or analysis that provide evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, entirely in-universe, no outside sources demonstrating notability. A hard core of editors has been attacking the nominator for daring to nominate non-notable articles for deletion. They may make various claims, but these articles are on non-notable topics, no citations demonstrating otherwise will come to light, and these articles should be deleted. SolidPlaid 21:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still waiting for these "various claims" to materialize here... No? None yet?... --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think I went to the trouble of typing that? To preclude such claims from being made, and thereby get these articles deleted. SolidPlaid 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-11 Requests for comment/Gavin.collins and judge for yourself. Even if Gavin has the right reasons to delete, the RPG wikiproject cannot handle all the Afd blitz. The project is already fixing their notability problem and really need a much needed respite.--Lenticel (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree, the project is not fixing their notability problem. These articles can never achieve notability, and admitting that will allow the project to concentrate on those articles that are worth retaining. Furthermore, they can always be created anew. SolidPlaid 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was it then that you removed this notability tag? [1] Or Gavin (yes, Gavin) removed this one? [2] Or this "unreferenced" tag? [3] And this prod? [4] Or that this nomination was withdrawn? [5] Adding a tag or two to an article is infinitely quicker than adding proper sources (which, admittedly, would have been better being there from the start). So the cleanup is going to take a while. Again, people aren't arguing that some good hasn't come out of recent events, but I feel the manner in which it has happened hasn't really been handled well (on both sides on the matter in some respects). I think that redirecting articles is a much better way of handling many cases (when a good target for redirection exists, as does in this case). If someone attempts to create the article in the future, they'll find that a redirect already exists, and can then figure out how to make the resulting article better (especially if some reason for the redirect is supplied in the edit summary or on the talk page when it's redirected). And I'd suggest that "never" is (almost) always a poor choice of words. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles are not those articles, I guess. My goal is to comment on the articles in this AfD nomination, which are non-notable and should be deleted. I am not here to defend all of Gavin.collin's actions. SolidPlaid 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the mediation case is already closed. SolidPlaid 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that too, because it is not a content dispute but it shows that the RPG editors are civil enough not to go to ArbCom that quickly and gives Gavin time to consider his behaviour, time that Gavin does not give the project itself. How can they fix their notability standards if you pile Afd's on them daily?--Lenticel (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was it then that you removed this notability tag? [1] Or Gavin (yes, Gavin) removed this one? [2] Or this "unreferenced" tag? [3] And this prod? [4] Or that this nomination was withdrawn? [5] Adding a tag or two to an article is infinitely quicker than adding proper sources (which, admittedly, would have been better being there from the start). So the cleanup is going to take a while. Again, people aren't arguing that some good hasn't come out of recent events, but I feel the manner in which it has happened hasn't really been handled well (on both sides on the matter in some respects). I think that redirecting articles is a much better way of handling many cases (when a good target for redirection exists, as does in this case). If someone attempts to create the article in the future, they'll find that a redirect already exists, and can then figure out how to make the resulting article better (especially if some reason for the redirect is supplied in the edit summary or on the talk page when it's redirected). And I'd suggest that "never" is (almost) always a poor choice of words. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: Pick a single article that is in this batch, and fix it up with citations demonstrating outside notability. Then point out that if you can do it for one, you could do it for all, if only you had more time. That will show that the AfD process is going too quickly, and back up your claim of needing more time. SolidPlaid 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not part of the RPG project and I do not have the expertise to help them in that matter. Besides if I do edit the articles, Gavin will point out that I'm part of the project and will put me in his "defense" as an RPG editor who is harassing him. I also noticed that you accused Gavin of deliberately tricking editors into overzealousness via Afd, something that is frowned upon by the community as gaming the system. Had these articles nominated in a different time, I'll vote for merge. But because the RPG people are already suffering under the current deadlines imposed by Gavin on his other Afd's, I believe those people needs someone to ease their burdens --Lenticel (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaming participants is not the same as gaming the system. It takes two to tango. SolidPlaid 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mis-using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming. However it is more often categorized as using Wikipedia to prove a point or abuse of process. Therefore gaming participants is gaming the system and two more frowned upon procedures. By the way, you still did not answer why you deliberately accused Gavin of such conduct.--Lenticel (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you are engaging in a strawman argument; I did not delibrately accuse G.c of "such conduct". I pointed out that he was being quite reasonable in agreeing to disagree. It was his opposition, who were desperately fighting a rear guard action to try and defend untenable positions, who played themselves. SolidPlaid 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then manipulating people to fix things for you is reasonable then? I have proven that gaming participants is gaming the system plus two more no-no's. Where is the strawman there? I looked at your defense in the RfC and found that when faced with a tough question, you don't even answer and create a whole new thread. Case and point. Last time you diverted the discussion to the Afd, this time you accuse me of strawman arguments--Lenticel (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you are engaging in a strawman argument; I did not delibrately accuse G.c of "such conduct". I pointed out that he was being quite reasonable in agreeing to disagree. It was his opposition, who were desperately fighting a rear guard action to try and defend untenable positions, who played themselves. SolidPlaid 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mis-using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming. However it is more often categorized as using Wikipedia to prove a point or abuse of process. Therefore gaming participants is gaming the system and two more frowned upon procedures. By the way, you still did not answer why you deliberately accused Gavin of such conduct.--Lenticel (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaming participants is not the same as gaming the system. It takes two to tango. SolidPlaid 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not part of the RPG project and I do not have the expertise to help them in that matter. Besides if I do edit the articles, Gavin will point out that I'm part of the project and will put me in his "defense" as an RPG editor who is harassing him. I also noticed that you accused Gavin of deliberately tricking editors into overzealousness via Afd, something that is frowned upon by the community as gaming the system. Had these articles nominated in a different time, I'll vote for merge. But because the RPG people are already suffering under the current deadlines imposed by Gavin on his other Afd's, I believe those people needs someone to ease their burdens --Lenticel (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Suggeston I'm leaning toward agreeing with Gavin on these nominations, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know whether these fictional places merit articles of their own or not. Maybe it would make sense to merge these into one larger article on the subject of Greyhawk itself? (I'm assuming that there is one and notability for that article has already been established, but I'm also counting on others more knowledgeable than I am in this subject to help out here.) Rray 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Greyhawk (where more refs should be added too, before we get into that...) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I lean toward deleting all except Iuz, which is more notable than the others. If the appropriate project people want to do cleanup, then I'd be happy to give them some breathing room for the reasons expressed above. Thus I vote to keep without prejudice toward further deletions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious as to why Iuz is more notable than the others? Rray 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious as to why Iuz is more notable than the others, when it is only half finished? --Gavin Collins 07:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
- Being half-finished and being notable are 2 completely different things. An article's level of completion isn't an indicator one way or the other of the subject's notability. I could write a half-finished article on George W. Bush, but just because the article wasn't finished, it wouldn't make George W. Bush less notable. Rray 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects to different locations Iuz is the Darth Vader of Greyhawk. I think that all articles should be redirected to Greyhawk, with the exception of Empire of Iuz, which should redirect to Iuz. Turlo Lomon 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction Bissel (Greyhawk) should be deleted, and the redirect occur directly from Bissel. All material, if needed, should be merged into the appropriate articles. Turlo Lomon 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What I don't understand is this could have easily been handled with a merge tag, or discussion on the talk pages. We were already discussing cleaning up this set of articles. Turlo Lomon 04:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It is this forcing people to do his bidding that caused me to go here.--Lenticel (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Turlo Lomon. Edward321 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironic Comment If Gavin took the time to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greyhawk, which all of these articles fall under, he would have seen that there were plans in place the day before he did this AfD to create the redirects that are being suggested above. Now, to stay within the boundries of Wikipedia policy, we can't do the redirects until this AfD is closed. Turlo Lomon 10:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no such thing an edit freeze during an afd. On the contrary, I think it is strongly encouraged to improve an article, at any time. Better to spend work in making the articles comply to the policies than arguing wether they do or could or not. People might like to check Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I say this not in relation to these article, but as a matter of general policy.--Victor falk 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Actually, the project group agreed these should be redirected. However, to make a redirect work, you have to remove the AfD, which is expressly forbidden until the AfD discussion is over with. The quality of the articles is not in question. We agree with Gavin that they are not notable enough to warrent seperate articles. Turlo Lomon 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you can merge the articles if you want too, which would effectively close this AfD. I am not sure if it is standard practise, but this is what happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle HRMS. I imagine the admin would be happy as it would save him work. --Gavin Collins 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All. There's a wikiproject working on this stuff. Let them do their work. Lenticel has it right: cut them some slack. AndyJones 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Turlo Lomon. Percy Snoodle 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All, Remove AFD allow wikiproject Greyhawk to do their work on the timetable they believe is correct. Web Warlock 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and allow the wikiproject to work as appropriate.--Cube lurker 17:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. BOZ 22:22, 13 October 2007 (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.