Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 September 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruenor Battlehammer

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

The topic of the article isn't notable because it doesn't have "significant coverage in secondary independent sources", per WP:GNG. Out of 9 sources, #2 and #5 to #9 are primary sources, and sources #1, 3 and 4 are completely trivial mentions thus not significant coverage:
#1 is just a mention of the character's name in passing inside a single-paragraph plot summary of the novel
#3 is just a single mention inside a repetion of plot points from the novel
#4, same thing, the character is just mentionned in passing once inside a single-paragraph plot summary for the novel.
These sources contain no commentary or analysis whatsoever, they do not go beyond mere plot summary, and correspond to the WP:GNG definition of "trivial" ("The one sentence mention [...] is plainly trivial". ). As such they do not "adress the subject directly in detail" since first they don't adress the subject (the character) but rather the book in which he appears, and second, the character itself is barely mentionned once and no detailed external statement whatsoever is made on it. The sources have already been severely criticized in the article talk page. Per WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", and so the sources provided only allow to write a definition of the topic (ie it's fictional history). Which means that this article also violates WP:NOTPLOT in that there are only three short sentences in the whole article (13,267 bytes) that aren't plot (so the sources themselves don't allow us to write "a whole article"). A search on Gbooks and Gscholar didn't give any result besides primary sources and more ultra-short plot summaries. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG. When this article was nominated for AFD the first time it had no sources at all, and the ones it currently has were added after that AFD, so I suspect we will find more sources this time around as well. The plot can stand to be trimmed significantly, but that is no reason to delete. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You claim "the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG" but you refuse to explain why, and you refuse to adress my arguments that the sources don't meet the GNG. You "suspect we will find more sources this time around as well" yet you refuse to explain why or actually bring forth these so-called sources. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy", unless you provide an actual explanation for why the sources would pass the GNG and why you suspect sources will be found, your comment should be discarded from the final consensus assessment as it boils down to WP:ILIKEIT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nominator's claim that sources 2, 5 and 6 are primary sources is debatable; the primary source materials mentioned here are sources 7,8 and 9, the published novels in which the article subject is a character. Sources 2,5 and 6 are sourcebook materials based on the character defined by the primary material, in that they distill the characterization defined by the novels into usable game mechanics. The fictional characterization section is rather too large and too world-specific, but that is a matter for article cleanup by editing, not AFD (and time and real-world commitments permitting I may take a stab at that). Additional Comment: the nominating editor is politely but firmly reminded of WP:CIVIL; you are not the closing editor and it is not your place to decide whose comments should be discarded from the consensus assessment. Otherwise, your nomination and subsequent comments can just as easily be boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons sourcebooks being original works of fiction in which the character appears, published by the same editor as the novels, they are unquestionably primary sources. Please refer to WP:PASI for a definition of primary sources related to articles about fiction: " primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g., another episode of the same series)". Interpretations that other original works of fiction featuring the discussed character wouldn't be primary sources have already been rebutted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons). I'm afraid the topic doesn't have the required sources to write anything other than plot summary, and i don't think it is possible to find them (illustrated by my own research and the fact that the two "keep" !voters failed to provide them) so this AfD is perfectly relevant. And as such, I don't see any reason why you'd be recommending conservation and I'm politely asking you to please provide further arguments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the AFD was irrelevant; if it was, I would have recommended procedural close rather than keep. I provided no additional sources because I believe those present, as noted, are sufficient. The AFD you referenced above does not, as far as I can see, refute or rebut my argument that the subsequent Handbook references published by Wizards of the Coast are not primary sources (given the enormous size of that AFD, if you can provide a specific edit reference, please do so), and I referred to WP:SECONDARY before entering my recommendation above. While it is an essay, I believe WP:Secondary does not mean independent has some relevance here. The referenced handbooks are not "another episode of the same series"; they translate a fictional, in-universe character into a real-world implementation for use in a real-world game. The fact that said game is a fantasy RPG and depicts a universe (any universe) other than our own is not under discussion here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment and Question: I just reviewed the edit history for the first AFD on this article and I believe this diff contains a relevant argument: is it still the consensus on Wikipedia that major characters in significant novels or novel series are inherently notable? (Note: I may not have linked that diff correctly; if I did not, I hereby give permission to other more wiki-knowledgeable editors to correct it.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the AfD does rebut that D&D sources wouldn't be primary sources, that was precisely the whole point of the AfD. You can easily see that the nomination itself and every redirect argument were based on the premise that D&D sourcebooks are primary sources, and consensus was in favor of these arguments. All the articles that got redirected were sourced to various D&D sourcebooks, obviously that didn't make them notable. Every time the question was brought to the Reliable Source Noticeboard the answer was the same:[1],Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_127#Dungeons_.26_Dragons_sourcebooks. Also, "another episode of the same series" was just an example, the main point of WP:PASI is "the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction". I don't think you can deny that Forgotten Realms RPG handbooks and Forgotten Realms novel are affiliated works of fiction. As for Forgotten Realm itself, it is a game built around a fictional universe. Both the fictional universe and the game and its mecanics in themselves are primary sources. As long as we're dealing with official handbooks that define what the game is and without which the game would just not exist, we're dealing with primary sources. WP:Secondary does not mean independent can be true but not relevant here since sources used to establish notability must be independent anyway. And as to your additional question, notability is not inherited and there are no specific notability criteria for fiction (there was an attempt to build that at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) but it failed and the GNG is used for fictional elements).Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced link to the Reliable Source Notice Board appears to be a single, short discussion between 4 editors. I do not believe that defines a consensus by Wikipedia standards, nor does it reference any previous discussions on the same subject. Further, even if the AFD/Noticeboard discussion did define a consensus that the sourcebooks are primary sources with respect to the D&D monster articles (and I do not grant that it does), that is not relevant here. This article refers to a character in a series of novels written by Bob Salvatore under contract to TSR starting in 1987 (see wikipedia article on Salvatore and the references therein). The Forgotten Realms campaign setting was first published in 1987 and contained no references to any of the characters which subsequently appeared in Salvatore's novels, and in the appropriate references to the Salvatore article in an interview with the author, he categorically states that these characters were his creations. This means that the subsequently-published sourcebooks, containing the game mechanics to adapt the novel characters to D&D games running in the FR campaign setting, must be secondary sources, since Salvatore's novels do not provide any such game mechanics and simply tell a story. The argument that the game mechanics are equally fictional is not a strong one - to use an analogy, the videogame Quake is a work of fiction, but the underlying Quake Engine which implements the physics which make the gameplay possible is not. You can't play Quake without the Quake engine; you can't play the Forgotten Realms campaign without the underlying D&D game mechanics. If you do, you are just telling stories set in the Forgotten Realms - which is precisely what Bob Salvatore's novels are, and why I am arguing that in this context the sourcebook material is a secondary and effectively independent source. I see nothing in your comments above, or in the AFD/notability discussions you linked, which refutes that.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to take the matter to the RS/N for further confirmation if you want. But we have a consensus in AfD on the fact that D&D handbooks are primary sources, and it is perfectly relevant here. Your whole argument is fallacious since its premise is to ignore the undisputable fact that Forgotten Realms RPG handbooks and Forgotten Realms novel are affiliated works of fiction. Salvadore's novels are part of a bigger "Forgotten Realm" franchise, just as the handbooks are. Both are the property of TSR/WotC and both are components of the same commercial franchise. The Forgotten Realm handbooks cannot be secondary source since they are not "one step removed from an event", because they are not removed from the Forgotten Realm franchise (the event), they are FR, just as the novels are. They don't make "analytic or evaluative claims" since they're building a game and a fictional universe. Which is also why they are absolutely NOT independent. Your analogy with Quake also isn't appropriate, Quake Engine isn't a secondary source on Quake, it's a component of Quake, just like FR handbooks and novels are components of the FR campain setting. As for Forgotten Realm itself, it is a game built around a fictional universe. Both the fictional universe and the game and its mecanics in themselves are primary sources. As long as we're dealing with official handbooks that define what the game is and without which the game would just not exist, we're dealing with primary sources (yes, I'm copypasting since you apparently refuse to adress any remark that rebuts your opinion). I'm sorry for you, but the previous AfD I linked totally debunked your interpretation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plonk*.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I don't think the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide books are independent (as the character comes from a Forgotten Realms novel, the sourcebook is simply a continuation of the IP through a different product), the article does appear to have independent sources. Assuming that this is Greenwood Press, then I'd certainly say that's an independent source (as the website that article links to does have the book in question). The other source, Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry, is also independent of the topic. The article does have multiple reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. I think the article satisfies WP:GNG, although additional independent sources certainly would help strengthen the article. - Sudo Ghost 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please adress my actual reason for nomination which is that these sources are not significant ? As I said, they're all single-paragraph plot summaries that only mention the actual topic (the character) once in passing. Significance is a part of WP:GNG and your comment doesn't adress that issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted the Dungeons & Dragons Wikiproject of this discussion. Dream Focus 03:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Per BOZ" has been challenged for contradicting WP:AFDFORMAT as it fails to "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Maybe you could provide a more argumented comment that would adress the nomination in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do not adress the issue of unsignificant sourcing raised in the nomination, as such you fail to "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Maybe you could provide a more argumented comment that would adress the nomination in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the nominator's reasons, if accepted, would mean that there would rarely be articles on fictional characters in fictional universes, or in game universes. These articles are of considerable interest to those playing fantasy role playing games, and we should let them have the articles, if properly written and sourced, which this article is as it stands, if not when it was first nominated for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do not adress the issue of unsignificant sourcing raised in the nomination, as such you fail to "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Maybe you could provide a more argumented comment that would adress the nomination in detail. Also, AfD is not where you should make claims that no single article on fictional characters should be deleted, this matter should be dealt at Wikipedia Talk:Notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2012 (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.