- 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. Tone 14:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Mordenkainen
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mordenkainen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Suggest deleting per notability. This is textbook WP:CRUFT. Virtually every reference in this article is drawn from forum posts, which are hardly appropriate sources, and they simply discuss trivia. The other sources are not better. At least one source (Cham) does not reference Mordenkainen in a significant sense and only establishes common knowledge (that the character was an invention of Gygax's). I cannot find substantial references to Mordenkainen per se in Google Scholar. I am a D&D fan and am aware that Mordenkainen is a well-known name within the game, but absent better references, I propose deleting. Geethree ( talk)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios ( talk) 10:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 14. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 11:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as there are a few WP:RS that detail the character and his creation, failing that merge to Greyhawk per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 13:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to me the nomination criticises both that there are too many details and that the article is too general ("common knowledge"), wouldn't that be a contradiction? The sources be ENWorld and Boing Boing are both interviews, so even if the former's presentation in a forum may limit it for establishing notability, it directly gives the opinion of the creator, so it should be appropriate in that regard. If the source by Mizer gives only common knowledge (I don't think it does), why is that in a scholarly secondary source? That source has a few sentences more, about Mordenkainen exploring El Raja Key, which I think might be to detailed - but it is treated in a secondary source. Mordenkainen appears at least in a footnote in this thesis. The character is treated in Designers & Dragons, and in the online magazine Game Rant, both now in the article. It appears extensively at internet publisher BOLS. And again in detail in the book Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore. Spells named after him appear in many sources about games. That together should satisfy notability. If all of that should not be considered enough, the topic should at the very least be merged, not deleted. Daranios ( talk) 14:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons cited by User:BOZ and User:Daranios. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Reliable sources are referenced for information about the character, significant coverage given about them in various places. They are talked/written about enough to be notable. Dream Focus 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Selective merge to List of Greyhawk characters. Most of the article is WP:INUNIVERSE and Wikia material, this is better off on the D&D Wiki. There is an obvious target for the name, although it also seems like complete listcruft. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge, very selectively, to List of Greyhawk characters. Does not meet notability criteria. Not a single in-depth sourcing on the character. Lots of mentions, and almost 75% of the current sourcing is primary. Onel5969 TT me 22:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are talking about the current status of the article, but sources not yet in the article count for notability. At the very least the
BOLS article and
Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore are in-depth.
Daranios (
talk) 06:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- First, Bols is not a reliable source, they are a shill for the gaming industry. I can't judge the other book, as I only see a portion of what's there. Hopefully it's a portion, if not, then it's little more than an extended blurb. The rest are simply mentions. Onel5969 TT me 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are talking about the current status of the article, but sources not yet in the article count for notability. At the very least the
BOLS article and
Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore are in-depth.
Daranios (
talk) 06:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect - The character seems perfectly summarized by Greyhawk#Significant player characters of the home campaign (character list is fine too). The sourcing is too weak for a full article. GameRank is listicle garbage. No site that puts 20+ lists in a single 24 hour period belongs in an article on this site. "Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore" says all of nothing on the character. Other sources seem similarly sparse on real commentary. The core takeaway is that "the character is important," but not much is actually going into discussing it. The character should definitely be discussed, but it should be discussed as part of the larger topic at this time. TTN ( talk) 22:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I have removed the in-universe stuff, what is left is Keep for reasons cited by User:BOZ and User:Daranios Guinness323 ( talk) 16:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's still almost entirely sourced to an interview of Gygax, WP:PRIMARY source, does not count towards notability. The actual, critical reception of the character is extremely small and would never pass muster if such an article was submitted to AfC. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Interviews count towards notability, just can't always use the primary source as a reference for information in the article. Dream Focus 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. is what it says in the guidelines. The vast majority of the article is based on such sources, with only one non-primary source that is not a listicle, that is used for only a sentence. If we removed primary sources and trivial mentions, we'd have... nearly nothing. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Interviews can be primary and/or secondary sources. Its all about context. If something is so notable that instead of just writing about it, they interview the writer of it about it, that still counts as secondary source and its notable. Dream Focus 05:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- The current state of the article is of marginal relevance on the issue of notability. See WP:GNG and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, too much sourced to a primary source. But it meets notability requirements without those sources. So while there may be editing issues, there isn't a deletion issue. keep. And, btw, I personally really like the article we have. Hobit ( talk) 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It has been expanded nicely since the AfD started. I haven't analyzed the sources and there may be some OR/SYNTH stretching here but... the 'origins' section reads well enough I think this can be kept. And this source is rather convincing the topic is notable (just look at the section title, lol). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 21 September 2020 (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.