Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undead (Discworld)

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 delete. TNT, with no prejudice against someone re-creating this with better, not so fancrufty sources. I am also willing to userfy or email a copy on request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undead (Discworld)[edit]

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

Contains only plot summary from the Discworld novels (WP:NOTPLOT). Such content belongs in fan wikis; Wikipedia treats fiction from a real-world perspective (WP:WAF). No indication that this particular topic (as opposed to the individual novels and the series) is notable per WP:GNG. Tagged for sources for 3 years without success. Sandstein 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a lot that needs working on in Discworld, and while opinions on how to best address this may vary, I'm entirely convinced that piecemeal deleting parts of 'meh' content is not the best way to approach upgrading our Discworld content to encyclopedic value. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Keep [1], [2], [3], [4] (note that this is a book pointing to another journal article), [5]... and more. There are quite a lot more RS'es discussing Pratchett's use of the undead as social commentary on minority rights. Of course, the current article doesn't reference any of these, but it's clear that the topic itself is notable and that it can be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, these are reliable sources, but I'm not sure that they amount to more than passing mentions. We could write perhaps a paragraph's worth of a proper article based on these sources, and that content would fit well in an existing Discworld article. That's not a reason not to delete this huge pile of in-universe fancruft, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOTPLOT. Sandstein 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to trim the article appropriately per WP:NOTPLOT, WP:WAF, or personal preference, and it would be a good thing if more people did actually improve articles on notable topics that currently stink. What's not appropriate is to delete an article on such a notable topic when regular editing, to include merging and redirection, would suffice to remedy the problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. If the topic is notable (which I don't think this is), but the content is worthless, then it's best to delete and have somebody competent start over. Sandstein 09:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support your opinion with policy, please. WP:TNT is an essay; WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATD are possible alternatives to deletion. To implement them, somebody needs to be interested in actually doing the work - that is, deleting all the crufty plot summary and replacing it with well-sourced real-world-based content. I don't I see you doing that work. And I also don't think that we have enough sources to base a full article on. Sandstein 07:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't cited any policy for your opinion, merely explained how you interpret the deletion policy I cited in a way that isn't supported by the text of the policy. I would love to have time to fix all of Discworld, and Babylon 5, and Stargate, and every other fictional franchise that I've actually read or seen, yes. Failing that, I simply struggle to find time to argue against non-policy-based deletion attempts like this one. You could redirect it somewhere, but you don't, probably because... well, I don't know, redirecting it surely takes less time than debating me here, so why didn't you? :-) And even if you disagree that this should exist as a standalone article due to the sufficiency of the sources, there's still plenty of V content here, so no, it shouldn't be deleted just because you don't want to take the time to merge or redirect it appropriately. You are the one who decided the status quo was insufficient, so the burden of action is on you. Nothing prevents you from rolling your eyes, wishing someone would fix it, and moving along without doing anything. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT, the entire article is unsourced. Any information on the Undead that is notable, can later be added to the main universe article Discworld (world) where a section on them exists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/retarget to be a more general page on races in Discworld (maybe Sentient races in Discworld), and move the character descriptions to Discworld characters. The article isn't sure whether all the races described are undead, and neither am I. I wouldn't object to a TNT deletion; the article is entirely unsourced and written with a far too in-universe POV. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Actually, I'm not sure TNT is effective against undead. Normally you need something like a silver-tipped crossbow bolt, or prolonged exposure to sunlight, but WP:TNT is the weapon we have available, so it'll have to make do. Reading over the page, I don't see how any amount of fixing will make it into an encyclopedia article. It's been tagged for improvement for ten years, so I don't think anybody could accuse us of being hasty if we deleted it now, with no prejudice against somebody writing a new version from scratch. I'd be happy to userfy it, if somebody wants to use that to assist in writing a new version. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT article is unsourced in universe fancruft. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2018 (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.