Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deities in the Elric series

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Deities in the Elric series}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deities_in_the_Elric_series Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Deities in the Elric series}})

Collection of in-universe minutia. There doesn't appear to be anything worth merging elsewhere. It's content better left to Fandom. TTN (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely in-universe with no sources beyond the books themselves, nor any evidence that the topic is notable. WJ94 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is terrible. It can't—and shouldn't—be retained in its current form. But. With some of these fiction topics, the problem is that the article authors sliced big-picture topics too deeply (and didn't source, although in 2006 when this was created that was hardly an ironclad expectation), obscuring the fact that there are legitimately notable aspects of some fictional works. Outright deletion compounds the problem, by reducing our coverage of fictional topic spaces to articles (often poor themselves) about the physical sources and their authors alone. Here, for example, the notable topic is almost assuredly not the list of named deities in Moorcock's writing, but rather something akin to Cosmology of the Moorcock multiverse (the exact name is an editorial issue, would depend on precisely how the sources present the matter, and is wholly beside the point). More than one book has been published about Moorcock's works and their themes, and the first two I found both consider the religion and cosmology of the setting in some detail ({{cite book |last=Scroggins |first=Mark |title=Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy, and the World's Pain |publisher=McFarland |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-4766-2417-4}} and {{cite book |last=Gardiner |first=Jeff |title=The Law of Chaos: The Multiverse of Michael Moorcock |publisher=Headpress |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-909394-19-3}}). Other sources for such an article are likely also extant; I'm not a Moorcock expert, and gave this a relatively cursory search. I don't pretend that such an article (which could also clean up Law and Chaos and several other Moorcock-related topics) is going to be written during the 7-day AFD window, nor even a more expansive time frame allotted by relists; certainly, my hands are full elsewhere, and I don't have time to do it. That's the outcome the project should desire here. But the article we have instead is unsourced, over-focused, and tonally inappropriate; it absolutely meets the standards for deletion, so that's what I fully expect we'll do instead. And then on to the next one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

:*Honestly, I feel a full TNT and building from the ground up once someone has drafted a proper article is the best course of action. There might certainly be a few FA potential articles from such a series, but the amount of work needed means that will likely never happen without a set of people truly interested in the project. Paring it down to a few essential pages and leaving the building blocks on the talk page would help. TTN (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

:*I have to agree with TTN on this one. I can accept that a Cosmology of the Moorcock multiverse article could be notable; however I can't see how much of the present article would realistically be appropriate to include. I don't think that such an article would warrant the minute details of every deity, as is present in the current article and I don't see much else which is worth saving. If you want to save the history here, then I see no problem with you saving a copy in your userspace — but I'm not convinced the article as it stands would be helpful to anyone wishing to write the article you suggest. WJ94 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

::* Things like this can be helpful as research tools insofar as they provide viable search terms for the development of a better article, not because a better article would resemble this in any real sense. That said, please don't draftify this one to my user space. I wish I could help, but I'm trying to source and fix pretty much all of the D&D articlespace, and I only have so much time. That said, I think my preference here would be redirect to Elric of Melniboné to preserve this in article history for later editors. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable cruft that hasn't been changed much since 2006. There's no real reason to hope someone will make it encyclopedic now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Transwiki then delete. Please first copy this to https://stormbringer.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Search?query=deities then delete. Fails WP:GNG and such, but we can preserve it on the wikia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.