Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankh-Morpork City Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus defaulting to keep. Consensus is that the topic does have sufficient notability and sources to be a stand alone article; and there is also rough agreement that the article as currently stands is inappropriate, and likely meets WP:PLOT which is a valid reason for deletion. Advice at WP:ATD supports looking at editing alternatives to deletion when the topic is notable but the article is problematic, and there are calls for upmerging to allow sourced material to be gathered in the parent article until such time as the material grows sufficiently to allow it to be split out per WP:Summary style into a standalone. So, the situation is that the article as stands can be called either as a delete/redirect/merge due to failing WP:Plot, while the topic itself meets our inclusion criteria. The decision as to which way to go rests on the consensus of the discussion, and the consensus here is to keep the article, so it is appropriate that the article is kept, though with a flag that the article as it stands needs attention. Given that the consensus is to keep the topic rather than the article, and that a formal "Keep" would in essence be validating an article that comes up against WP:Not, I feel it would be fairer to close this as no consensus, defaulting to keep. It would be helpful if those involved in this discussion do not just to move on after this AfD is closed, but engage in improving the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Amended following discussion on my talkpage SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]
- Ankh-Morpork City Watch (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)
A fictional organization in a series of popular novels. Tagged for failing WP:N since January, entirely written as in-universe plot summary incompatible with WP:WAF, and entirely unsourced. Such content is better suited to fan wikis; any necessary plot summary belongs in the article about the respective novels or in one character list (there are currently far too many). Sandstein 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete While it pains me deeply to say this and verges on self-harm, the article fails basic notability criteria and is not professionally written and should be deleted. (Such recondite material should not be freely disseminated among the plebs anyways) Ankh.Morpork 22:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Weak Keep. - It is apparent that the policies governing fictional work are unclear and inconsistently applied. It is a fine line what constitutes a secondary topic and requires independent sourcing, and what falls under the notability umbrella that applies to the primary subject. This and the scattering of sources produced that allude to the City Watch have led me to change my vote. Ankh.Morpork 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Policies are on the contrary quite clear and, judging by AfD outcomes for fictional elements, consistently implemented. I don't see, however, what you're calling "primary subject" and "secondary topic". All topics on Wikipedia require secondary independent sourcing (see WP:PSTS and WP:GNG), and article about a work of fiction itself require as much coverage from independent sources than articles about seperate fictional elements (see WP:WAF).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Discworld series is referred to in a plethora of independent sources and and were the material pertaining to the City Watch to be included in that article - as I believe it originally was, the fact that many character details were based on primary sources would not pose a problem as this is an integral informative aspect of the series. Now that this material has been devolved into a separate article for convenience, it strikes me as excessively anal that this relevant material should suddenly be subject to stringent requirements. It seems analogous to articles on TV series that have split-off articles detailing individual episodes for each season without much secondary sourcing. Yet they exist because they are relevant and describe an overall notable topic. Ankh.Morpork 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the WP:WAF guideline explains, and the WP:NOTPLOT policy more generally states, articles need to be more than just a collection of plot details, and though they are indeed important elements in an article, there always has to be a certain balance between plot and external commentary (with more emphasis on commentary). And that works for all kind of articles, per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Discworld itself is certainly a notable topic, but that is not necessarily true of its seperate fictional elements. That might seem excessively anal to you, but the various policies and guideline correspond to what the community wants Wikipedia to be, and there's no reason Discworld should be an exception. You can always ask for changes or even demotion at policy talkpages or RfC, but AfDs are there to see whether articles meet current policies and guidelines, not to change them. Also, it's not because 4 million articles exist that they've all been checked and approved as policy-compliant, if you feel some, like individual TV show episodes, don't meet policies or guideline, you're free to nominate them for deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have been unclear. I am not citing the mere existence of parallel Wikipedia articles as reason to preserve this article. Rather, I am using them to demonstrate how Wiki policies have been customarily interpreted regarding these kind of works. I repeat that what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic and what is core elemental material, which may employ primary sources, is uncertain, and not to be determined by whether Wikipedia decided to accord that particular aspect an individual page for convenience. Ankh.Morpork 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I still don't see what you mean. If you're referring to the mere fact that someone could write an article that is seemingly against policy, then that's bound to happen with 17 million registered users (who can be new and inexperienced or ill-intentioned), that Wikipedia is difficult to manage does not mean "policies have been customarily interpreted" because whenever a non-notable article is identified (which can take some time with more than 4 million articles to check) it gets deleted according to policies. There is nothing "uncertain" that I can see, "what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic" is as bound by policies as any other article, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:PSTS or WP:GNG mention "Wikipedia articles" without any distinction. All articles are subjected to policies and guidelines, whether it is Discworld fictional elements or TV show episodes. And from what I see of this discussion, this article is likely to be notable and be kept, not because "it's Discworld !" but because significant coverage in secondary independent sources has been found. Other articles derivative of equally notable/popular series like Harry Potter or Star Wars have been deleted out of lack of such secondary content, again per policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG because the criterion for admissibility is only the existence of enough secondary content, I don't see anything unclear here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your persistent linking to a gamut of Wikipedia policies and obsessive, dogmatic iteration of abstruse acronyms is certainly impressive, but there is a cap to the amount of alphabet soup and cretinous croutons that I am able to comfortably consume and alas, my stomach has reached capacity. Kindly understand that I am merely stating my point of view and am not attempting to proselytize you to my way of thinking; your didactic dissension has been noted - and dismissed, so I request that you refrain from haranguing me further. Ankh.Morpork 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I still don't see what you mean. If you're referring to the mere fact that someone could write an article that is seemingly against policy, then that's bound to happen with 17 million registered users (who can be new and inexperienced or ill-intentioned), that Wikipedia is difficult to manage does not mean "policies have been customarily interpreted" because whenever a non-notable article is identified (which can take some time with more than 4 million articles to check) it gets deleted according to policies. There is nothing "uncertain" that I can see, "what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic" is as bound by policies as any other article, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:PSTS or WP:GNG mention "Wikipedia articles" without any distinction. All articles are subjected to policies and guidelines, whether it is Discworld fictional elements or TV show episodes. And from what I see of this discussion, this article is likely to be notable and be kept, not because "it's Discworld !" but because significant coverage in secondary independent sources has been found. Other articles derivative of equally notable/popular series like Harry Potter or Star Wars have been deleted out of lack of such secondary content, again per policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG because the criterion for admissibility is only the existence of enough secondary content, I don't see anything unclear here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Discworld series is referred to in a plethora of independent sources and and were the material pertaining to the City Watch to be included in that article - as I believe it originally was, the fact that many character details were based on primary sources would not pose a problem as this is an integral informative aspect of the series. Now that this material has been devolved into a separate article for convenience, it strikes me as excessively anal that this relevant material should suddenly be subject to stringent requirements. It seems analogous to articles on TV series that have split-off articles detailing individual episodes for each season without much secondary sourcing. Yet they exist because they are relevant and describe an overall notable topic. Ankh.Morpork 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as overly-detailed plot; articles on literature should provide background, analysis, reception, critical reaction, etc. Belongs on a Pratchett Wiki not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- close as an issue outside the remit of AfD. Once again, UK fiction articles are being AfDed for lack of non-primary sources whilst US subjects that have exactly the same problems are left unchallenged. The only difference is whether the cast of Big Bang Theory would see them as collectable.
- This belongs on a Pratchett wiki. Does it also belong here? That's a _massive_ question. Are articles of this depth, based on the primary use of the fictional source, appropriate for WP? That's a real question, and a biggie. Much too big for AfD. If the answer is no, then that's a lot of material needing to be destroyed. As it is though, AfDing odd articles in drips and drabs has become a popularity contest, not an objective application of policy. No one is going to go after an article like this, with exactly the same problem, if it's about X Men or Twilight. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:WAX. My personal opinion is that inappropriate fancruft should be removed regardless of national origin (even if, as in this case, I am a fan of the series in question). As to the general question you pose, it has been answered in the negative by way of WP:N and WP:WAF, both of which are community-accepted content guidelines. Sandstein 14:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I'm not voting either way, but I'd like to ask a question. I know that when you have an exceptionally large cast of characters in a notable series, it's customary to have the characters have their own list page. I've also seen where some of the more noticeable groups are pulled into separate categories in themselves, as evidenced by Death Eater. I'm not trying to use that as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just asking whether or not this would be salvageable if we were to turn it into a list entitled List of Ankh-Morpork City Watch characters and include history sections for each character. I'd say that we could merge any pertinent data into a list of characters for the Discworld series, but we don't actually have a current list of characters for the series, surprisingly enough. In any case, I'm just wondering if such an article did exist, if there would be enough of the characters of the AMCW to warrant it having a list of its own.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- question The issue here isn't that the topic is fictional, but the lack of non-primary sources for it. So how about adding some. Would Stephen Briggs Discworld Companion series be considered an acceptable source? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the first "Discworld Companion" was authored by Pratchett himself and thus fails independence. The "New Discworld Companion" was co-authored by Pratchett and thus also fails independence. So the "Complete Discworld Companion" which lists only Briggs as the author might be if the content regarding the Watch is entirely new to that volume. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Discworld per GiantSnowman. A smerger is also appropriate. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There is at least one detailed critical study on the City Watch, even if for some reason I can't get it directly in a GScholar search (and unfortunately don't have current access to a copy): "The City Watch" by Edward James, in Butler, Andrew M., James, Edward and Mendlesohn, Farah, eds. Terry Pratchett: Guilty of Literature, ISBN 1-882968-32-8. It also gets quite a number of GBooks and GScholar hits (particularly if you search on "Ankh-Morpork"+"City Watch" or "Discworld"+"City Watch" rather than the article title), even discounting those authored or co-authored by Pratchett - I'd guess that some of them are usable, the difficulty being sorting them out from the primary sources and passing mentions. PWilkinson (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite appropriately. Major fictional organization that spans dozens (literally, dozens) of books, which have been adapted into many separate BBC teleprograms. The search results by PWilkinson are instructive, but only begin to scratch the surface of literary interpretation that likely exists. Sorry to have been so late to the discussion, but I've been out of the country. Clearly meets the GNG, and should be kept rather than upmerged. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that a large part of the article is a character list, full of otherwise non-notable characters, and large fictional franchises, such as Game of Thrones, have multiple character lists when there are too many non-notable characters to maintain in one place. Note further that per what links here (or, even better, this list of redirects), this exists as the target of many previous merges, as part of an effort to clean up an even-more messy morass of prior Discworld watch character articles, and as such its removal would create a quite a large hole in our coverage and linkage of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to support an extension of this discussion so that more sources may be found. I'm fine with that. In substance, I'm ambivalent: if there is substantial commentary about the City Watch, as is alleged above (I don't have access to these sources), a separate article might be technically justified. But that does not change that the current article reads like something out of a fan site. If kept, a stubbing (in preparation for a complete rewrite) might be needed, or a stubbed upmerger until somebody actually writes some encyclopedic content based on these sources. Sandstein 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It seems to be accepted on Wikipedia for articles about major entities from fictional universes to be supported mainly by works related to that universe, if the universe as a whole is notable (e.g. Luke Skywalker). By that standard, this article can easily be supported by the Discworld novels/films themselves, supported by the existing tertiary source and possibly another one like Lspace. That is in fact the basis of many of the Discworld Wikiproject articles. -- BenTels (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, it is not accepted on WP to have articles on fictional entities entirely (or mainly) sourced to primary sources (ie the novels/films themselves), even if the original fiction is notable in itself. See the policy WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". For more details, see also guidelines, such as WP:GNG which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article [...] "Sources" for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability [...] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". As for the universe as a whole being notable, see WP:NRVE: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Specifically on fiction, see WP:WAF which details the appropriate use of primary/secondary sources. Conclusion, to be notable, an article about a fictional element must be mainly based on secondary sources. Whether the article being discussed here is suitable for inclusion does not depend on its appearance in various Discworld works, but on its appearance in secondary sources that discuss it in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given how roundly and thoroughly your viewpoints just got repudiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination) and the subsequent DRV you filed, don't you think it more appropriate to go study how Wikipedia's actual handling of the notability of fictional topics differs from your viewpoints about it? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? Given that policies and guidelines represent the actual standard and practices of the Wikipedia community, I find them more relevant than your own misinterpretation and misrepresentation of an unrelated discussion (btw, in your haste to find something to throw at me, you also seem to have overlooked the fact that DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments). Since you seem so sure that your views are the right ones, why don't you go and propose changes to WP:PSTS, WP:GNG, WP:WAF...I'm so eager to see the results !Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to go back and read and try to internalize the first sentence of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which may explain why things diverge from what you wish they were. Failing that... I'm simply not sure how to engage with a user whose WP:IDHT level is so high he's claiming victory when absolutely no one agreed with him in both an AfD and the subsequent DRV. That is, you appear sincere in not understanding how clueless and, well, disengaged from reality you actually appear. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". So I ask again the question which you conveniently avoided to answer: can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? If actual WP practice is not, according to you in policies and guidelines, I really wonder where it is. DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments. And considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch bettle(Dungeons & Dragons), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) and many others, you don't have anything to boast of. Now, I've already told you that elsewhere, but stop following me around, your battleground mentality, use of unsubstanciated accusations and blatant personal attacks, is only hurting yourself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes--they are descriptive, rather than proscriptive: by trying to bludgeon other editors with the written word of policy, you're trying to turn it on its head. I've now given you an additional day after my entirely thorough rebuttal at my talk page to for you to amend your nonsensical messages, but I repeat myself here for completeness: By saying "stop following me!" to me on an AfD discussion where you showed up 28 hours after I did, and on a topic where I've had a related userbox on my page for the past 53 months, you're demonstrating a serious lack of connectedness to reality. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, for users to know what to follow, you have to describe it first, "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow" and this whole section contradicts everything you're trying to say: Wikipedia:Policy#Enforcement. Otherwise, do you seriously mean that anyone can just be for example non-neutral or write unsourced original research, without being told anything and without the contribution being reverted or thoroughly questionned ? As for private conflicts, they should be handled on user talk pages, I thought you would have understood that by now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes--they are descriptive, rather than proscriptive: by trying to bludgeon other editors with the written word of policy, you're trying to turn it on its head. I've now given you an additional day after my entirely thorough rebuttal at my talk page to for you to amend your nonsensical messages, but I repeat myself here for completeness: By saying "stop following me!" to me on an AfD discussion where you showed up 28 hours after I did, and on a topic where I've had a related userbox on my page for the past 53 months, you're demonstrating a serious lack of connectedness to reality. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". So I ask again the question which you conveniently avoided to answer: can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? If actual WP practice is not, according to you in policies and guidelines, I really wonder where it is. DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments. And considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch bettle(Dungeons & Dragons), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) and many others, you don't have anything to boast of. Now, I've already told you that elsewhere, but stop following me around, your battleground mentality, use of unsubstanciated accusations and blatant personal attacks, is only hurting yourself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to go back and read and try to internalize the first sentence of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which may explain why things diverge from what you wish they were. Failing that... I'm simply not sure how to engage with a user whose WP:IDHT level is so high he's claiming victory when absolutely no one agreed with him in both an AfD and the subsequent DRV. That is, you appear sincere in not understanding how clueless and, well, disengaged from reality you actually appear. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? Given that policies and guidelines represent the actual standard and practices of the Wikipedia community, I find them more relevant than your own misinterpretation and misrepresentation of an unrelated discussion (btw, in your haste to find something to throw at me, you also seem to have overlooked the fact that DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments). Since you seem so sure that your views are the right ones, why don't you go and propose changes to WP:PSTS, WP:GNG, WP:WAF...I'm so eager to see the results !Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is definitely a decent amount of coverage out there. I've found a few articles discussing Samuel Vimes and his Watch: The Sunday Independent: "One of the long-running characters in Discworld is a werewolf who works in the City Watch, which is the equal-opportunities police force of his sprawling fictional metropolis, Ankh-Morpork." and Washington Post: "Night Watch itself slots into Pratchett's ongoing history of the metropolitan police force, the City Watch, a profession in the forefront of social change" are two examples. I also found an article about the game Guards! Guards! in which the players play as members of the City Watch here.—Torchiest talkedits 18:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this book, The Turtle Moves!, which is pretty in-depth, and includes a chapter called "Sir Samuel Vimes and the City Watch: Who Watches the Watchmen?". —Torchiest talkedits 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another book source, An unofficial companion to the novels of Terry Pratchett, which includes at least one chapter specifically discussing the City Watch. At this point I'd say the article clearly passes WP:GNG, although it needs significant clean-up, possibly including a split/merge of the characters to a main Discworld characters article, and narrowing the focus of this article to just the concept of the watch itself. —Torchiest talkedits 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional sources since there were several news sources found above, I focused on a Google Scholar search:
- 1 is a discussion of Dirty Harry that notes allusions, parallels, and parodies in the Watch and Vimes.
- 2 is a magazine article which discusses the watch in an overview of the entire series: "many of the books in the subseries featuring the Ankh Morpork city watch may be seen as parodies of detective stories, but at the same time they continue to debate the issue of institutionalised racism"
- 3 is a book which covers the watch in the context of two characters (Angua, Detritus).
- These are in addition to the above three references, and are limited to Scholar results, in English, which do not appear to duplicate anything else above. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dirty Harry book is a Wikipedia mirror. WP:CIRCULAR -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Folklore of Discworld" is written by Pratchett himself and thus not a third party source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and if what the third source says is "many of the books in the subseries featuring the Ankh Morpork city watch may be seen as parodies of detective stories, but at the same time they continue to debate the issue of institutionalised racism" thats all well and good, but hardly significant coverage upon which the article could be built. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- trans wiki and start fresh -
IfPer Torchiestis correct and"The Turtle Moves! includes a chapter called "Sir Samuel Vimes and the City Watch: Who Watches the Watchmen?" and An unofficial companion to the novels of Terry Pratchett, includes at least one chapter specifically discussing the City Watch,"it seems likely thatI would say that "significant coverage in third party reliable sources" exists. However, one wonders how one could take the monstrosity that currently exists and create an article based on these and any other sources that might appear without completely nuking the article and starting over? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Like I said, I think moving the character list to a new article, or combining it with another Discworld character list, if such exists, is the best way forward. —Torchiest talkedits 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are direct links to the chapters: "Sir Samuel Vimes and the City Watch: Who Watches the Watchmen?" and "City Watch". —Torchiest talkedits 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (to TRPOD) That would be called "regular editing"--it happens all the time, in places all over the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT - what in the history would be worth saving? It appears to contain nothing but original research.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... except that what you term original research is actually nothing more harmful than plot summary, some of it probably excessive, which can be cited to the primary sources themselves. Do you have any specific passages that you believe cannot be fixed without excision? Give me something to fix, and I'll cite or remove the material as an example that it's entirely doable. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...except that none of that "plot summary" crap is worthy of being saved for an encyclopedia entry. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask again: Pick a specific section that you want to see cleaned up, and I will prove it can be done. If you're not going to, then I respectfully submit that your lack of willingness to have cleanup demonstrated appropriately undermines the basis of your position. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can start with these sections
- 2 Fictional history (before the time the novels are set in)
- 3 History according to plot of novels
- 4 Ranks
- 5 Uniform and equipment
- 5.1 Watch badge
- 5.2 Communications
- 5.3 Oath
- 6 Members
- 6.1 Commander Sir Samuel Vimes
- 6.2 Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson
- 6.3 Captain Angua von Überwald
- 6.4 Sergeant Fred Colon
- 6.5 Corporal Nobby Nobbs
- 6.6 Sergeant Detritus
- 6.7 Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom
- 6.8 Constable Reginald Shoe
- 6.9 Lance-Constable Salacia "Sally" von Humpeding
- 6.10 Constable Dorfl
- 6.11 Constable Visit-the-Infidel/Ungodly-with-Explanatory-Pamphlets
- 6.12 Inspector A E Pessimal
- 6.13 Constable Igor
- 6.14 Constable Downspout
- 6.15 Corporal Buggy Swires
- 6.16 Minor Watchmen
- 6.16.1 Special-Constable Andy "Two Swords" Hancock
- 6.16.2 Sergeant Stronginthearm
- 6.16.3 Acting-Constable Cuddy
- 6.16.4 Constables Flint and Morraine
- 6.16.5 Lance-Constable Bluejohn
- 6.16.6 Corporal Ping
- 6.16.7 Andre
- 6.16.8 Constable Wee Mad Arthur
- 6.16.9 The Librarian
- 6.16.10 Constable Haddock
- 6.16.11 Lewton
- 6.17 Former Members
- 6.17.1 Findthee Swing
- 6.17.2 Mayonnaise Quirke and The Day Watch
- 7 Allies
- 7.1 71-Hour Ahmed
- 7.2 Willikins
- 7.3 John "Mossy" Lawn
- Well, since you've expressed no particular ordering, I'll just clean up one of my choosing later this evening, then, and you will accept that as a successful demonstration that any of the rest can be cleaned up through regular editing, right? Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, The Librarian has been done. Admittedly, he's one of the easier characters to expound upon, since he's appeared in almost every Discworld book, but the same level of sourcing could probably be met for most of the major characters, and the minor characters cleaned up appropriately. 04:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I dont believe that you have made a case for this article. one of the non primary sources you used doesnt deal with with subject of the article The AM Guards at all it just mentions one of the characters in a different context. the other source mentions the subject of the article in passing, one line about the Guards, but the one time the Librarian is mentioned in the source, it is not in connection with the Guards. The whole content of the section is built on primary source materials. Articles need to be based upon content from non primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You named Librarian. I improved Librarian. It sources the three plot point assertions to the primary sources, and cites two non-trivial secondary sources covering the Librarian, and I did that without even referencing his own article. I can do the same thing to any other section--find multiple primary sources to source the plot points, trim out excessive plot, and find secondary sourcing to substantiate any section as needed. As far as the overall prevalence of secondary sources, see e.g. my discussion with Uzma Gamal, below, where I've cited The Washington Post in addition to the various other book chapters, articles, etc. referenced elsewhere in this AfD. The case is clearly made that regular editing is sufficient to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, and I'd welcome your help in actually doing so rather than simply naysaying that what I did briefly last night cannot possibly be sufficient and/or cannot possibly be extended to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You asseement of "non-trivial" is apparently different than the Notability definition of "non-trivial" (Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." ) is plainly trivial.) - Your two examples are BOTH of the "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." variety.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You named Librarian. I improved Librarian. It sources the three plot point assertions to the primary sources, and cites two non-trivial secondary sources covering the Librarian, and I did that without even referencing his own article. I can do the same thing to any other section--find multiple primary sources to source the plot points, trim out excessive plot, and find secondary sourcing to substantiate any section as needed. As far as the overall prevalence of secondary sources, see e.g. my discussion with Uzma Gamal, below, where I've cited The Washington Post in addition to the various other book chapters, articles, etc. referenced elsewhere in this AfD. The case is clearly made that regular editing is sufficient to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, and I'd welcome your help in actually doing so rather than simply naysaying that what I did briefly last night cannot possibly be sufficient and/or cannot possibly be extended to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont believe that you have made a case for this article. one of the non primary sources you used doesnt deal with with subject of the article The AM Guards at all it just mentions one of the characters in a different context. the other source mentions the subject of the article in passing, one line about the Guards, but the one time the Librarian is mentioned in the source, it is not in connection with the Guards. The whole content of the section is built on primary source materials. Articles need to be based upon content from non primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, The Librarian has been done. Admittedly, he's one of the easier characters to expound upon, since he's appeared in almost every Discworld book, but the same level of sourcing could probably be met for most of the major characters, and the minor characters cleaned up appropriately. 04:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since you've expressed no particular ordering, I'll just clean up one of my choosing later this evening, then, and you will accept that as a successful demonstration that any of the rest can be cleaned up through regular editing, right? Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask again: Pick a specific section that you want to see cleaned up, and I will prove it can be done. If you're not going to, then I respectfully submit that your lack of willingness to have cleanup demonstrated appropriately undermines the basis of your position. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...except that none of that "plot summary" crap is worthy of being saved for an encyclopedia entry. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... except that what you term original research is actually nothing more harmful than plot summary, some of it probably excessive, which can be cited to the primary sources themselves. Do you have any specific passages that you believe cannot be fixed without excision? Give me something to fix, and I'll cite or remove the material as an example that it's entirely doable. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT - what in the history would be worth saving? It appears to contain nothing but original research.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles can't and shouldn't be written from primary sources, period. WP:AVOIDSPLIT cautions us against splintering a topic (such as Discworld) into endless articles about each chapter, location, character, item, or any aggregate thereof. The city watch needs third party sources. And not just any third party sources. Those that WP:verify notability with significant coverage. The topic is occasionally mentioned by independent sources, but only in passing as they focus on the broader series. If those sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, then you can't meet the GNG, nor write a good article on the topic. (Agree that AFD is not clean-up. But I'd still conclude that the problems with the article are inherently due to the lack of sources, which means that it cannot be fixed with any amount of re-writing.)Refactoring to weak keep based on some analysis in at least one source, with some optimism that the article can be improved further. Also, seeing as this discussion has been surprisingly contentious, I would support a merge if it will help people find common ground for a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Except that third-party reliable sources have been demonstrated above. Is there something you find inadequate about an entire chapter in a book? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those chapters aren't about the fictional city watch. They're about a sub-series of books also titled "city watch". I haven't seen any significant coverage in there that could turn this character list (considering it's already covered at Discworld characters) into more than a series of plot summaries. I'm not sure that replying to every AFD comment individually is going to be an effective way to prove otherwise, but I don't want to lecture you on your tactics. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're seriously arguing that a chapter about a series of books that feature the Ankh-Morpork City Watch aren't themselves about the organization most prominently featured in those books? The implications of that are... interesting. I am not replying to every comment, simply those which do not articulate an appropriate policy basis for their !vote, which are strangely prevalent in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm arguing that you can't fork every work of fiction into two articles: one about the fiction, and one about the topic of the title. For example, we don't have an article about Raiders of the Lost Ark AND Raiders of the Lost Ark (raiders). We might and we could, but it would require some kind of distinct information that isn't really about the movie itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Counterexample: Do we need to delete Jedi because we have Return of the Jedi? Of course not. Much like the Watch vs. the Watch books, the former are covered as prominent fictional elements in the latter. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said "we don't do it". I said "we don't do it for every work of fiction". We do it for Jedi because, low and behold, there are lots of sources that do more than recap the plot of the movies. Those chapters don't really do that for the City Watch. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This chapter does more than just plot recap. In particular, read page 231. That's analysis. —Torchiest talkedits 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Torchiest on this one, there is analysis that is more than just trivial mention. But there is no indication whatsoever that An unofficial companion... deals with the group of characters. I'm not convinced it's enough to make the article notable, though...Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the professional reviews of the book on Amazon, the book is both scholarly and comprehensive, and includes, according to the Booklist review "more than 300 entries for books and stories-their themes, characters, and places". Hence, the "City Watch" chapter certainly contains exactly the type of coverage we would want for an encyclopedia article. —Torchiest talkedits 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys are right. I'll refactor my comment. Folken raises a valid concern, that we do need more than one source (the GNG calls for multiple sources), but you've convinced me that there's a decent chance it exists somewhere. I might come to believe otherwise, but for now I'm willing to give the article in chance. (Still, in practice, if you're going to have multi-threaded discussions about what's in a source, you may as well save your energy and just improve the article with what you saw in the source instead of expecting everyone to be able to comb through every paragraph and see what you saw. I know it's hard work though.) Shooterwalker (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't have access to the full text of either of those books right now. The first one has enough in the Google preview to do some work with, but the second one, An Unofficial Companiion, is something I can't do anything with yet. My local library doesn't have a copy either, sadly. —Torchiest talkedits 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys are right. I'll refactor my comment. Folken raises a valid concern, that we do need more than one source (the GNG calls for multiple sources), but you've convinced me that there's a decent chance it exists somewhere. I might come to believe otherwise, but for now I'm willing to give the article in chance. (Still, in practice, if you're going to have multi-threaded discussions about what's in a source, you may as well save your energy and just improve the article with what you saw in the source instead of expecting everyone to be able to comb through every paragraph and see what you saw. I know it's hard work though.) Shooterwalker (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the professional reviews of the book on Amazon, the book is both scholarly and comprehensive, and includes, according to the Booklist review "more than 300 entries for books and stories-their themes, characters, and places". Hence, the "City Watch" chapter certainly contains exactly the type of coverage we would want for an encyclopedia article. —Torchiest talkedits 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Torchiest on this one, there is analysis that is more than just trivial mention. But there is no indication whatsoever that An unofficial companion... deals with the group of characters. I'm not convinced it's enough to make the article notable, though...Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This chapter does more than just plot recap. In particular, read page 231. That's analysis. —Torchiest talkedits 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said "we don't do it". I said "we don't do it for every work of fiction". We do it for Jedi because, low and behold, there are lots of sources that do more than recap the plot of the movies. Those chapters don't really do that for the City Watch. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Counterexample: Do we need to delete Jedi because we have Return of the Jedi? Of course not. Much like the Watch vs. the Watch books, the former are covered as prominent fictional elements in the latter. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm arguing that you can't fork every work of fiction into two articles: one about the fiction, and one about the topic of the title. For example, we don't have an article about Raiders of the Lost Ark AND Raiders of the Lost Ark (raiders). We might and we could, but it would require some kind of distinct information that isn't really about the movie itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're seriously arguing that a chapter about a series of books that feature the Ankh-Morpork City Watch aren't themselves about the organization most prominently featured in those books? The implications of that are... interesting. I am not replying to every comment, simply those which do not articulate an appropriate policy basis for their !vote, which are strangely prevalent in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those chapters aren't about the fictional city watch. They're about a sub-series of books also titled "city watch". I haven't seen any significant coverage in there that could turn this character list (considering it's already covered at Discworld characters) into more than a series of plot summaries. I'm not sure that replying to every AFD comment individually is going to be an effective way to prove otherwise, but I don't want to lecture you on your tactics. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that third-party reliable sources have been demonstrated above. Is there something you find inadequate about an entire chapter in a book? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per at least WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOT#FANSITE. Wikipedia article space is not a place for fans to build a webpage. The page should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE notwithstanding, I see nothing about either area you've referenced that applies to this article. Could you please elaborate your policy-based reasoning? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Resorting to non process statements such as "third-party reliable sources have been demonstrated above" fails to make a careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and the impact the work of fiction has had in the real world. Insufficient reliable source information exists addressing aspects of Ankh-Morpork City Watch's real world production process and publication. Insufficient reliable source information exists addressing actual chronology of real-world events related to Ankh-Morpork City Watch. Moreover, insufficient reliable source information exists addressing the author's intention regarding Ankh-Morpork City Watch. The failure of those proposing to keep the article to establish significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Ankh-Morpork City Watch subject is reason enough to delete under WP:GNG. There has been little effort on anyone to add reliable source information to the article during this AfD because that would highlight lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Instead, the effort in this AfD is to claim the issue merely is one of clean up and claim that bits and pieces of real world information or plot information in reliable sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. The lack of sufficient reliable source information means there is insufficient source material from which to summarize and create a Wikipedia article that meets Wikipedia article requirements. The long term, non-compliant state of this now 64,114 bytes page evidences that enthusiastic admirers of the topic have turned the article space into a webpage having its own culture. As noted at WP:INUNIVERSE, -- the threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. Many fan wikis and fan websites take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become. -- The lack of independent reliable source information prevents this topic from being written via the perspective of the real world. This article represents something we do not want Wikipedia to be or become and should be delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement is passionate, eloquent, and utterly mistaken. Notability does not require that sources be present in the article, merely that they exist. Your contention that "insufficient reliable source information exists addressing the author's intention regarding Ankh-Morpork City Watch" is simply untrue. Consider this Google News Archive search. 70+ times, mostly-reliable (I note that Google News now includes Wikipedia itself...) sources deal with the City Watch. Consider a single one of those 70+: in a review of the book Night Watch, Michael Dirda's writing for The Washington Post concludes that it "turns out to be an unexpectedly moving novel about sacrifice and responsibility, its final scenes leaving one near tears, as these sometime Keystone Kops, through simple humanity, metamorphose into the Seven Samurai. Terry Pratchett may still be pegged a comic novelist, but as Night Watch shows, he's a lot more. In his range of invented characters, his adroit storytelling and his clear-eyed acceptance of humankind's foibles, he reminds me of no one in English literature so much as Geoffrey Chaucer. No kidding." (emphasis mine) I'm afraid you've confused the current state of the article with its potential, and while the former is admittedly far inferior to the latter, deletion decisions are made on the basis of encyclopedic potential, rather than inappropriate arguments like WP:NOEFFORT, or attempts to misconstrue our policies against fan sites and forums to apply to an article that relies on excessive plot summary. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Resorting to non process statements such as "third-party reliable sources have been demonstrated above" fails to make a careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and the impact the work of fiction has had in the real world. Insufficient reliable source information exists addressing aspects of Ankh-Morpork City Watch's real world production process and publication. Insufficient reliable source information exists addressing actual chronology of real-world events related to Ankh-Morpork City Watch. Moreover, insufficient reliable source information exists addressing the author's intention regarding Ankh-Morpork City Watch. The failure of those proposing to keep the article to establish significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Ankh-Morpork City Watch subject is reason enough to delete under WP:GNG. There has been little effort on anyone to add reliable source information to the article during this AfD because that would highlight lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Instead, the effort in this AfD is to claim the issue merely is one of clean up and claim that bits and pieces of real world information or plot information in reliable sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. The lack of sufficient reliable source information means there is insufficient source material from which to summarize and create a Wikipedia article that meets Wikipedia article requirements. The long term, non-compliant state of this now 64,114 bytes page evidences that enthusiastic admirers of the topic have turned the article space into a webpage having its own culture. As noted at WP:INUNIVERSE, -- the threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. Many fan wikis and fan websites take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become. -- The lack of independent reliable source information prevents this topic from being written via the perspective of the real world. This article represents something we do not want Wikipedia to be or become and should be delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE notwithstanding, I see nothing about either area you've referenced that applies to this article. Could you please elaborate your policy-based reasoning? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's comment: The discussion has shown (and I think many on both sides can agree with this to some extent) that (a) the article as nominated is unsourced in-universe fancruft that does not belong in Wikipedia but (b) there is third-party coverage that may meet WP:N and could be the basis of appropriately scoped coverage of the topic. On that basis, my recommendation for how to proceed is to close the AfD as a redirect to Discworld#City Watch, with the expectation that the sources discovered here are used to rework that section and, if that section eventually becomes too large, it becomes the basis of a full rewrite of this article per WP:SS. Sandstein 09:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still respectfully disagree; that outcome 1) ignores the fact that per WP:ATD regular editing, which has been demonstrated effective on one section of this article, can remedy all the problems without such a redirect, and 2) there exist entire fictional characters, and not just minor ones, but major characters like Carrot Ironfoundersson and Angua, which redirect only to the current article and would be lost by such a redirect. Notability has been established, as you admit. The rest, as they say, is cleanup, and WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute the claim that "editing .. has been demonstrated effective on one section of this article". The one section that has been edited has been shown to NOT meet the requirements for a stand alone article reflecting the subject of the article. It was made "less bad" and "not entirely based on original research"; but any relation to the supposed topic of the article is still entirely OR based on primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your objection is noted, but disproportionate. The Librarian entry, as improved, is better cited and put together than most entries in a list of fictional characters. To expect it to support a standalone article is wildly unrealistic, not what I was aiming for, and well beyond the level of support necessary to demonstrate that the article can survive as a list of characters from a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute the claim that "editing .. has been demonstrated effective on one section of this article". The one section that has been edited has been shown to NOT meet the requirements for a stand alone article reflecting the subject of the article. It was made "less bad" and "not entirely based on original research"; but any relation to the supposed topic of the article is still entirely OR based on primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still respectfully disagree; that outcome 1) ignores the fact that per WP:ATD regular editing, which has been demonstrated effective on one section of this article, can remedy all the problems without such a redirect, and 2) there exist entire fictional characters, and not just minor ones, but major characters like Carrot Ironfoundersson and Angua, which redirect only to the current article and would be lost by such a redirect. Notability has been established, as you admit. The rest, as they say, is cleanup, and WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's the correct link to the book mentioned by PWilkinson above: "The City Watch" by Edward James, in Butler, Andrew M., James, Edward and Mendlesohn, Farah, eds. Terry Pratchett: Guilty of Literature, ISBN 978-1882968312. So to be clear, that is at least three separate literary criticism books featuring complete chapters covering the City Watch found so far. —Torchiest talkedits 02:30, 22 September 2012 (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.