Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Snotling: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:20, 15 August 2008 editDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →Snotling: signed← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 15 August 2008 edit undoProtonk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,727 edits →Snotling: dNext edit →
Line 76: Line 76:
**It has received substantial enough coverage for[REDACTED] and ] is never a valid reason for deletion. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC) **It has received substantial enough coverage for[REDACTED] and ] is never a valid reason for deletion. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Are bpeople telling us that they exist as a conceept beyond Warhammer? That would increase the notability considerably. this will of course need references, but if the widespread use claimed is present, this should be possible/ The criterion is of course, sourceable, not already-sourced. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe,and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, its notable. ''']''' (]) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Are bpeople telling us that they exist as a conceept beyond Warhammer? That would increase the notability considerably. this will of course need references, but if the widespread use claimed is present, this should be possible/ The criterion is of course, sourceable, not already-sourced. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe,and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, its notable. ''']''' (]) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Here we go again. The books, magazines and references on Warhammer subjects are almost exclusively produced under the direct control of the game manufacturer. Because they wield explicit and strong control over their intellectual property, an unlicensed fictional or out of universe account of this unit is highly unlikely. The significant coverage available on this subject comes from Games Workshop publications and publishing houses (], Fanatic magazine, the codexes and the works of fiction are all published and produced by games workshop). The sources listed above in the AfD (as no independent sources in the article are cited) provide a textbook definition of what is meant by a ]. Each source either mentions the text string "snotling" in an entirely different context or only mentions it in passing on the way to discuss another subject. It is plainly not our business to populate this encyclopedia with items simply because some company has published material about them. This feeling is expressed in the guideline ] and in the overall outcome for the warhammer AfD's (overwhelmingly, the articles are deleted or redirected). We should respect that consensus and that guideline and delete this article as it fails ] and meets no daughter guideline. Arguments to keep the article based on logs of edits, searches, or inherited notability don't cut the mustard. Delete it. ] (]) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 15 August 2008

Snotling

Snotling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 book and game plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And how does this demonstrate notability (as defined by WP)? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No verification has taken place with this topic, no reliable sources presented, as usual it's a keep vote because....well, we just don't ever vote for deletion, regardless of a topics total lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have argued to and even nominated to delete over fifty articles. I typed in "snotling" on Google Books. A word that gets multiple hits is sufficient verifiable (after all, it's books, not just websites) and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, how many of those books were published by companies other than Games Workshop, BL Publishing or other companies owned by GW? -- JediLofty Talk 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The more relevant question in this case might be, how many of these given in the linked search deal with the subject of the article in question? One of them has a comment to the effect "That guy in the Games Workshop tee shirt looked like a snotling, one of the figures made by Games Workshop." How is this substantial coverage? The others deal with Jewish/Yiddish poetry (getting exactly *one* hit for the word "snotling" in a poem), and one gets a hit because apparently there's a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling, and hence the hit is on the Beckett price guide to baseball cards. So again, how many of these deal with the subjecct of this article? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~<noinclude></noinclude>

You would be mistaken, as there is only one reference, and it doesn't establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Google books shows more than one reference. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, which have nothing at all to do with the article under discussion. For example, how does a baseball player named Chris Snotling have any bearing on a fictional creature called a Snotling???? How does a poem that uses the word Snotling once have any bearing on the subject of this article (which is a fictional race in a fantasy game from a game puclisher??? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They demonstrate that the term is one that at worst we can use to construct a disambugation page covering these various usages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. I opposevcreating an article about every character, place, device and event in a fictional work or a game franchise when it has no substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game or a game guide associated with the publishers of the game. Edison (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop. The "references" (using the word loosely) in that Google books search are the very definition of "insubstantial".
  1. This one gives us "He looked like on of those Games Workshop creatures. A snotling. ... -- he looked like a snotling hedgehog with alopecia". And that's it.
  2. In this one we seem to find "A snotling peeked out from under her father's plate. Harmony watched in dread as her father cut into his strawberry ..." and "Maybe the snotling was trying to dig out from under the biscuit. If she could just squish it back down..." and nothing more.
  3. Here, here, and here we find the use of the word "snotling" exactly once in a poem (surprise, surprise, it's the same poem in three different books). So a single word in a 378 page book, or a 471 book (and another single word in a book of unknown page length). Pretty substantial, isn't it?
  4. This book also seems to have this word appear exactly once in it.
  5. Another book gives us " 'I did not hit you, you snotling' " as the sum total of its use of the word.
  6. We again find the word exactly once here and, though it's hard to tell from the online print source, it seems to be someone's name in a paper referenced in these conference proceedings.
  7. Finally, the last of the nine hits on the Google Book search is the Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide with, apparently, a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling (I think). So no relevance to the subject of this article.
In other words, in no way does this constitute "substantial coverage" and claiming so is misleading and disingenuous. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They are multiple references in published books that constitute substantial coverage of the word "snotling" in some capacity and saying they aren't is misleading and disingenuous. I am arguing that the article should not be redlinked as the word and its use is verifiable in some capacity whether it's the contents of the article or for a dramatic rewrite of the article. I see nothing to convince me that we can't use these sources to have some kind of article on "snotling" whatever that may be. It's not a word a wikipedian just made up. And even in the context used here, they are verfiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, those should go, too, right? They are just as invalid as snotlings are. Just go to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and PROD them all, with this debate as jurisprudence. It wouldn't be fair to keep those. Let's at least be consistent. Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No, they should all stay. There's no legitimate reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not at worst redirect without deleting these articles. Don't dwell on the disputed and subjective concept of notability. If at worst, WP:IGNOREALLRULES, as the most important thing is for us to be a comprehensive reference guide that gives our community of readers and editors what it wants. As such outright deleting this verifiable article that appears in various incarnations that several editors clearly believe is notable (something that has diverse use, receives multiple keep arguments, and can be verified is notable by any logical standard anyway) would hinder our ability to improve Misplaced Pages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course they should stay. One of the coolest things about[REDACTED] is being able to read up on almost any random, valid topic! Stijndon (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Primary sources can be used for verification, but not to establish notability. No notability is established through independent third-party sources, because they don't exist. Although I have to say that it is beyond awesome that there is on Earth a man named Chris Snotling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: Isn't the fact that loads of people feel the urge to post pictures of their snotlings on the web a form of notability? This is really a question, not some attempt to make a point. I would guess it is - so why isn't it? Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It is to any reasonable person. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(Note to self: Maybe I'm not "reasonable"...) I think it's really more vanity/showing off (in a sense), along the lines of "Look at these miniatures I've painted, aren't they swell!" It's not so much that they are pictures of snotlings, or any other creature/beast/man/tank/spaceship/etc, but people showing their painting skills that might happen to be on those models (maybe they *like* the models, but that's immaterial). Some of these types of postings are really "how-to" guides, i.e. "here's how I painted my figures" and are instructional material on painting techniques. There are plenty of "how-to" guides about how to build your own scenery for wargames (with plenty of accompanying pictures), but do articles about how to build bombed-out buildings or tank traps contribute to notability for "Ruins" or "Tank traps"? (And, of course, you should filter out all of the eBay (and other auction) listings as those don't "count" for notability as obviously people display their pictures to flog their wares.) Of course this is my opinion and yours may vary. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
So how can any modern fictional thing now be notable? Is there any justification for an article on warhammer at all? Its article is a mix of blatant advertising (wrong), how to play (WP:not-a-manual) and copyright infringement, filled up with non-notable things. I find it flabbergasting that an article on snotlings is so strongly opposed, whereas it is obvious that a large group of people may eventually want to read it ("Oh look, it's linked! Let's check it out real quick." And I meant the cocky painters that wanted to show off their mad skills by accidentally having painted a snotling instead of something impressive.) Doesn't "suitable for a specialised encyclopedia" mean anything? I thought that was one of the general includability-guidelines. Where do you draw this line? somewhere above snotlings, obviously, though I do not concur. Stijndon (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry as given that numerous editors and readers have been working on and reading this article since 2004 coupled with the many keep "votes" in this discussion, it is fairly clear that the actual community consensus is to keep as a handful of deletes in one five day discussion does not reflect the much longer community attitude toward this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable fictional creature. Craw-daddy's excellent analysis of the "sources" strongly indicates that this topic has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Are bpeople telling us that they exist as a conceept beyond Warhammer? That would increase the notability considerably. this will of course need references, but if the widespread use claimed is present, this should be possible/ The criterion is of course, sourceable, not already-sourced. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe,and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, its notable. DGG (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Here we go again. The books, magazines and references on Warhammer subjects are almost exclusively produced under the direct control of the game manufacturer. Because they wield explicit and strong control over their intellectual property, an unlicensed fictional or out of universe account of this unit is highly unlikely. The significant coverage available on this subject comes from Games Workshop publications and publishing houses (White Dwarf, Fanatic magazine, the codexes and the works of fiction are all published and produced by games workshop). The sources listed above in the AfD (as no independent sources in the article are cited) provide a textbook definition of what is meant by a trivial mention. Each source either mentions the text string "snotling" in an entirely different context or only mentions it in passing on the way to discuss another subject. It is plainly not our business to populate this encyclopedia with items simply because some company has published material about them. This feeling is expressed in the guideline WP:N and in the overall outcome for the warhammer AfD's (overwhelmingly, the articles are deleted or redirected). We should respect that consensus and that guideline and delete this article as it fails the general notability guideline and meets no daughter guideline. Arguments to keep the article based on logs of edits, searches, or inherited notability don't cut the mustard. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Snotling: Difference between revisions Add topic