Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelek (Dungeons & Dragons)
- 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 redirect to Dungeons & Dragons (TV series). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kelek (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:V. No independent RS sources are cited and the content is likely 100% WP:OR. Subject fails WP:GNG. I have been unable to find anything that meets the criteria for inclusion, specifically "in depth coverage from multiple WP:RS sources." There are quite a few hits in a Google search but almost entirely from non-RS sources, blogs and gaming websites, and the coverage is incidental and or trivial. The article has been tagged since 2014 w/o any evident improvement. I removed a proposed merger tag that has also been on the article since 2014 and that apparently went nowhere. In any event there is nothing that can be merged in the absence of reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I looked at the Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) and Kelek isn't even listed as a character. He's mentioned being a product of the toy line as none of the main characters appeared in the toy line. Kelek apparently was the villain of a single episode: List of Dungeons & Dragons episodes as mentioned in his own article. He doesn't seem to have had any appearances elsewhere unlike say the similar Warduke who has at least that under his belt. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons (TV series), possibly merge in the basic detail that he was a villain on the show. This is definitely too minor to merit a separate article, but it's getting 5-10 hits per day, indicating it's a possible search term. What I find strange is that the article creator slapped in-universe and refimprove tags on the article in its very first edit, so even they knew it wasn't WP:GNG worthy. —Torchiest talkedits 18:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect per Torchiest, and my thanks to the nominator for notifying the appropriate Wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have no objection to a Redirect. However, in its current state there is really nothing that can be merged given the complete absence of independent reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and only then recreate as a redirect if needed. There's a pernicious problem with these very poorly sourced D&D articles getting reverted (consensus or not) when they are turned into a redirect. Researching it, this character appeared in a lot of merchandise: An episode of the D&D cartoon, an action figure, one of many NPCs in a couple of modules (Quest for the Heartstone and The Shady Dragon Inn, which was probably recycled as filler), the villain in a couple of kid's story books, on sticker sheets, a vinyl figurine, maybe in some coloring books, and so on. All of this was in-universe integrated marketing by TSR, and while they may have tried to make it a phenomenon, it wasn't. I found no reliable independent coverage of this
cynical marketing gimmick aimed at childrenimportant part of gaming history, and I doubt such sources exist. Until they are actually found, and not before, the article should be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but please show me where we delete articles just because we think someone might do something bad with a redirect in the future. Fact is, if that's a problem, then protecting a redirect after multiple AfD's end in redirect is the appropriate action, not turning a non-notable article into a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Show you? It seems like you're making assumptions about my motives. This isn't supposed to be a new-default action for all D&D redirects, and not all of the many, many non-notable D&D-related redirect candidates should be treated this way, but I see nothing here worth keeping at all. This problem is described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Redirects being converted into stand alone articles? and elsewhere. There many more examples where that came from, as well. As a practical matter, deleting and then recreating is a straightforward, non-bureaucratic measure against an old problem. This way if there are sources, the article can still be recreated without having to worry about going through AFC or similar. Deleting it first would just make it slightly harder to go the lazy route of restoring an unsourced, in-universe article, which has happened far too often with D&D articles. Expecting multiple AFDs before protecting the exact same unsourced article seem like a song-and-dance. Deleting it first establishes a consensus while still leaving a clear path to creating a sourced article. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- An assertion of a problem doesn't make it a... problem. Yes, I do expect multiple AfDs, or BOLD re-directing if nothing's changed, rather than functionally destroying contributions to Wikipedia such that non-administrators can no longer access them. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't make it a problem that needs to be dealt with by draconian means. In almost no case involving notability does an article need to be deleted and then redirected: that should be for attack, COPYVIO, promotional or other harmful or unquestionably worthless content. For the rest of things, we should go out of our way to allow the no-longer-mainspace'd content to remain accessible to those who desire to improve it. That means a redirect without deletion, and a protected redirect in case of trouble with reverting the redirect without appropriately improving the separate article in a way that substantially changes the prior AfD'ing or other discussion resulting in the redirect. Our goal should be to keep as many appropriate things in mainspace, and not use blunt force tools designed to prevent harm inappropriately against popular yet insufficiently notable content. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as many appropriate things in mainspace? I don't fully understand what you mean, but I don't think that should be our goal. Whatever would hypothetically be worth saving could be recreated with no loss in quality in far less time than we've spent debating this. Why, exactly, should we go out of our way to preserve this? Wouldn't protecting the redirect just make it harder to actually create an appropriate article? I don't accept that the deletion of trivia is "inappropriate", "draconian" or "blunt force". Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, keep as much in mainspace as belongs in mainspace, but also keep as much that's both not appropriate in mainspace nor problematic (attack, copyvio, promotional) in a way easily accessible to any other editor who may want to come along and improve it. The fact that you categorize anything contributed to Wikipedia as trivial is problematic; one man's trivia is another's cherished contribution. Wikipedia as a whole has a problem with self-appointed adjudicators of content scaring off contributors; we want people to write about trivial things, even if we don't keep it all in mainspace, because the alternative is that only highly motivated contributors (who are often reimbursed in some way, often problematically) are going to be trying to get new content into Wikipedia. The effort behind recreation isn't the issue; rather, the act of "throwing away" (deleting such that no non-admin can see it) is a virtual slap in the face to the editor who added it in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you make a compelling argument. I dunno. I think the best way to encourage new editors is, in addition to basic decency, to take their contributions seriously. I don't think preserving their edits is always taking their contributions seriously. I think it's the opposite, actually. With articles like this we aren't just saying "please contribute" we are saying "any topic's a potential article, no matter how obscure" which sends an untrue message. Some of these are so bad it's saying "nobody's paying any attention, so do whatever you want". Neither of those are really encouraging. If our goal is to encourage new editors, we're... trying? B- for effort? Still, if that were all there were to it, I would flatly agree that deleting the article is far too extreme, and wouldn't have proposed it in the first place.
- As I've said, I'm skeptical that this is the behavior of new editors. Some of it surely is, but I no longer think the main problem is that simple. As I said at the Wikiproject, there's enough similarities and patterns that demonstrate, to me at least, that these edits are knowingly reverted without regard for consensus or community guidelines. I believe attempts to foster a welcoming environment are, effectively, being taken advantage of here. I say "effectively" because I'm not sure if I would characterize it as deliberate, but the IPs doing it aren't oblivious to what's going on. I don't specifically care if we delete this article, but I would like to take this problem seriously. Your comments about trivia are a fair point, but whatever we call it, almost every editor who's commented on these many AFDs agrees that we have a problem with very poorly sourced article on very obscure topics related to D&D. If I still believed this was just new editors, I would !vote, shrug, and move on, but... this looks like something else to me, and I would like to see if we can't do something about it beyond the same-old, same-old. Obviously this isn't the best forum for figuring out how to address this, though. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, keep as much in mainspace as belongs in mainspace, but also keep as much that's both not appropriate in mainspace nor problematic (attack, copyvio, promotional) in a way easily accessible to any other editor who may want to come along and improve it. The fact that you categorize anything contributed to Wikipedia as trivial is problematic; one man's trivia is another's cherished contribution. Wikipedia as a whole has a problem with self-appointed adjudicators of content scaring off contributors; we want people to write about trivial things, even if we don't keep it all in mainspace, because the alternative is that only highly motivated contributors (who are often reimbursed in some way, often problematically) are going to be trying to get new content into Wikipedia. The effort behind recreation isn't the issue; rather, the act of "throwing away" (deleting such that no non-admin can see it) is a virtual slap in the face to the editor who added it in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as many appropriate things in mainspace? I don't fully understand what you mean, but I don't think that should be our goal. Whatever would hypothetically be worth saving could be recreated with no loss in quality in far less time than we've spent debating this. Why, exactly, should we go out of our way to preserve this? Wouldn't protecting the redirect just make it harder to actually create an appropriate article? I don't accept that the deletion of trivia is "inappropriate", "draconian" or "blunt force". Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- An assertion of a problem doesn't make it a... problem. Yes, I do expect multiple AfDs, or BOLD re-directing if nothing's changed, rather than functionally destroying contributions to Wikipedia such that non-administrators can no longer access them. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't make it a problem that needs to be dealt with by draconian means. In almost no case involving notability does an article need to be deleted and then redirected: that should be for attack, COPYVIO, promotional or other harmful or unquestionably worthless content. For the rest of things, we should go out of our way to allow the no-longer-mainspace'd content to remain accessible to those who desire to improve it. That means a redirect without deletion, and a protected redirect in case of trouble with reverting the redirect without appropriately improving the separate article in a way that substantially changes the prior AfD'ing or other discussion resulting in the redirect. Our goal should be to keep as many appropriate things in mainspace, and not use blunt force tools designed to prevent harm inappropriately against popular yet insufficiently notable content. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Show you? It seems like you're making assumptions about my motives. This isn't supposed to be a new-default action for all D&D redirects, and not all of the many, many non-notable D&D-related redirect candidates should be treated this way, but I see nothing here worth keeping at all. This problem is described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Redirects being converted into stand alone articles? and elsewhere. There many more examples where that came from, as well. As a practical matter, deleting and then recreating is a straightforward, non-bureaucratic measure against an old problem. This way if there are sources, the article can still be recreated without having to worry about going through AFC or similar. Deleting it first would just make it slightly harder to go the lazy route of restoring an unsourced, in-universe article, which has happened far too often with D&D articles. Expecting multiple AFDs before protecting the exact same unsourced article seem like a song-and-dance. Deleting it first establishes a consensus while still leaving a clear path to creating a sourced article. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but please show me where we delete articles just because we think someone might do something bad with a redirect in the future. Fact is, if that's a problem, then protecting a redirect after multiple AfD's end in redirect is the appropriate action, not turning a non-notable article into a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect per Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect is fine, but as I noted above, there is nothing to merge. The article doesn't cite a single independent reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. As Grayfell notes, the AD+D character obviously exists in multiple media and as Torchiest notes, the term is searched for on Wikipedia. The action figure is mentioned and illustrated and placed in context in the book Totally Tubular '80s Toys; a brief mention, but a secondary source. The character also gets a brief mention in the book Marvel Graphic Novels and Related Publications: An Annotated Guide to Comics, Prose Novels, Children's Books, Articles, Criticism and Reference Works, 1965-2005, another secondary source. The character was on the cover of the childrens book AD+D Forest of Enchantment, a primary source. There's not much, not nearly enough for notability, but enough to verify a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Don't the hits simply mean that it's getting clicked on at the articles where it's hyperlinked to? For if you search for "Kelek", you don't even a get disambiguation page. You go straight to Kelek. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect perhaps at best because there are no convincing signs of a better independently notable article and is obviously best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.