Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vecna

Vecna

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

Non-notable fictional character. All of the sources in the article do not verify notability, as they are not independent of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons. A cursory search on the internet did not give any evidence of the existence of good independent sources on this topic which cover it in depth. The importance of this topic within D&D is irrelevant to notability unless it can be demonstrated that there are independent sources which provide significant coverage. Simone 08:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep there are no reported issues with this article so taking to AFD is bad faith. There are sources, ignoring those to push a point of view or agenda is also bad faith. Web Warlock (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the old AFD on this was Keep. So no, this is a keep as well. Web Warlock (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Please link to the AfD. And note that consensus can change. Particularly if the old AfD was based on claims of "coverage in third party sources existing" somewhere that have not actually been produced to verify the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on additions by Webwarlock. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- see the talk page for an analysis of those sources and how they do not appear to actually address the WP:GNG requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new additions made in the last day by Webwarlock indicate a notable presence in certain aspects of popular culture as affirmed by reliable sources. Guinness323 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to a fansite that would love this kind of trivia. Based on the analysis of the sources added by WebWarlock on the Talk page, none of them actually provide anything that could be considered "significant coverage" by "reliable sources" about the "subject of the article" - they are mostly just trivial observations that happen to include Vecna. Perhaps a merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons would be acceptable, there is the Wired review that would provide at least one Third Party Source to that article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Nothing qualifying for significant coverage of the topic has been provided, so it should be removed unless WP:N and WP:WAF can be met. TTN (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (Merge possible) to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG. Sources have been added, but I share TRPoD's assessment of these being only trivial mentions and not significant coverage, in the AfD talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources 2 & 7. The former was written by another person commenting on other authors' creations within the D&D genre. Major plot entity over 30 years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- as of this version reference 2 is Dragon Magazine, the officially licensed publication of Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons Franchise. Not an independent source. reference 7 as discussed on this talk page is a blog post that may or may not be argued is acceptably reliable, but the only content is a reference that "Vecna" is an anagram of "Vance". That is not significant. And just cause a fictional being was mentioned in print 30 years ago is not one of the riders providing an exception to the requirements of WP:GNG.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with TRPoD, source 2 is not independent no matter how much you wish it could be, source 7 is trivial.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - When the article referenced by Source 2 was written in 2007, Dragon was -- and had been for a number of years -- independently published by Paizo, under a license agreement with WotC. Paizo was not owned by Wizards of the Coast; quite the contrary, in 2008 when WotC revoked the license to publish Dragon and introduced a new edition of D&D that superseded the current v3.5, Paizo became a competitor by publishing its own role-playing system, Pathfinder, based on the old v3.5 system. While there is no question that Dragon was tightly tied to the D&D gaming community, its editorial staff, artists and writers were not employed by WotC. Guinness323 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "under official license agreement" is the definition of NOT independent "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example.". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If Paizo was contractually tied to WotC, then there is no question of independence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This is nonsense - like saying that a mathematics text is not independent because it's written by a mathematician and appears in a maths journal. Most authors and publishers have a pecuniary interest in their work. It's the fact that people pay money for it that gives it value. Warden (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Your comment is nonesense. WP:GNG clearly states that "independence" "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Dragon was published by TSR, there was no question that Dragon was an mouthpiece of TSR with the sole purpose of promoting TSR products. However, once WotC was tken over by Hasbro, it was no longer interested in publishing a magazine. Rather than let the magazine die, some D&D enthusiasts led by Erik Mona formed Paizo and "rented" the license to publish Dragon from WotC; Paizo then kept the profits (if any) that it made from publishing the magazine. Paizo did not receive any funds from WotC in compensation, other than fees WotC paid for advertising. While Dragon continued to be the voice of D&D, Paizo never was a publishing arm of WotC, and its editorial voice was that of the D&D enthusiast, not the game manufacturer. Editorially, Paizo publicly disagreed with the direction WotC was taking D&D -- both inside and outside the pages of Dragon. WotC eventually withdrew the license to publish rather than let its competitor continue to use it as a bully pulpit. To insist that Paizo was not an independent voice because it paid WotC for the license to publish is to ignore the often testy relationship between the two companies. Guinness323 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see the point of "independence" as related to the WP concept of Notability, ie "attention from the world at large". Companies or products directly tied to the creator do not represent the "world at large", and cannot establish that the topic is worth mentioning on WP. Paizo, as the licenced published of an official WotC product, does not represent the world at large, only the small microcosm of the D&D copyright holders and their subcontractors. Your mention of divergence bewteen Paizo and WotC is irrelevant in that respect, besides it does not correspond to what reliable sources state about the non-renewed licence, which was because WotC wanted to switch to online. Whatever the tone they were using, they paid to benefit from WotC's official seal and were paid thanks to it, and as such were not an independently notable publication (ie they didn't acquire their name, readership and reputation on their own, without help from the D&D/WotC brand). They represented the D&D brand and didn't mention its product by choice, but because the creators licensed them to do so, no matter the tone they ended up using. And when WotC no longer wanted the publication to exist, it stopped. There is just no way that could be called independence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The connection with Jack Vance alone is enough to make the topic notable - see Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons or Advanced Readings in D&D: Jack Vance for example. Our editing policy then applies and so there is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, what makes a topic notable is the presence of significant coverage from reliable secondary independent sources, which is not the case here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited multiple good sources. If they need adding to the article then that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are just short, trivial mentions, not meeting the requirement of "significant coverage". Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons is probably unreliable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those pieces tell about Vecna in detail and all the sources seem to agree on the facts, which do not seem to be in dispute. They pass WP:SIGCOV easily. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, one short sentence is not "in detail", and doesn't allow to build an article that wouldn't violate WP:NOTPLOT. Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons is from a blacklisted website.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Simply being named after someone notable does not confer notability. Otherwise, Doctor What, Doctor Whom, Doctor Whooves, Doctor Why, Doctor Watt, Doctor Whozonfirst, The Professor, Inspector Spacetime, Tractor Who, and every other character on this page would each merit a separate article just about them for no other reason than being named after Doctor Who. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added one source. As of now, sources 2, 8, 25, 27, 29 (and 16 and 18 to some degree) are independent and show a general relevance of the subject. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source 29 is a self-published fan wikia therefore unreliable, sources 16 and 18 are forum posts so self-published and unreliable. Besides, none of the sources provide any significant coverage on the subject.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Web Warlock. Hihidufgh (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]