Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spelljammer crystal spheres

:{{la|List of Spelljammer crystal spheres}} – (View AfD)(View log)

A list of objects with no real world notability written from an in uiverse perspective. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because the content is verifiable does not mean it should have an article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't find this indiscriminate at all. If Wikipedia should be anything, it's useful, and I could totally imagine want to have this list close at hand at some point or another. Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment The article itself is not indiscriminate - no article is (apart from List of Everything). The point is that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate in its content - there are some things that it has been decided by consensus do not belong in an encyclopaedia. Lots of things are useful (links to essay); advertisments are useful to people looking for products to buy, guides are useful to people planning trips to cities or playing though computer games, forums are useful to people wanting to discuss topics with others and news reports can be very useful to people who want to keep up with what's going on in the world. However Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so such usefulness does not neccessarily mean that a topic is suitable for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:::None of your examples are pertinent to the example here, since this isn't an advertisement, a travel guide, or a game guide. Nor is it operating as a forum. The problem with arguing by examples when you just pick examples of unrelated things that are bad is....it doesn't actually make your point for you. Try sticking to the actual article instead. Or at least, pick relevant examples. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

::::I didn't mean "useful" in the generic sense. Bottle openers are useful, but I don't expect Wikipedia to open my beer for me. I meant "encyclopedically useful", as in, a body of information one might plausibly turn to an encyclopedia for at some point, like List of Star Trek characters: G-M. Ford MF (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry I misinterpretted you. However I think that that things like encyclopaedic usefulness are inherently subjective and hard to define, which is there are polcies and guidelines that outline standards for inclusion based on, notability, verifiability and consensus. I do not feel the topic of the article in question meets those standards. Guest9999 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

::::::You "feel" that it doesn't? Wait, did you just say your subjectivity beats my subjectivity? Ford MF (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I guess that would be up to the community. Guest9999 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep/merge Might be better as part of the Spelljammer article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge this referenced and well-organized information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well researched & nicely put together; a merge would just clutter another article. --mordicai. (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Important aspect of a D&D campaign setting. Sufficiently well-organized and referenced to stand alone as a valid sub-article of the main topic. --Polaron | Talk 21:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/merge Might be better as part of the Spelljammer article, though this will depend on article size. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; contains an important subset of information about a fictional universe that is notable in and of itself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Notability is not inherited (links to essay), notability is established through significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, I do not see any such sources present in the article. Although consensus can change it is worth noting that in the past list of fictional planets without secondary sources have been deleted at AfD, for an example see here. Guest9999 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]]

::*That makes about as much sense as saying that it is worth noting that in the past rock bands have been deleted, so future rock bands brought to AfD should be deleted. There's little to no similarity between the two articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::*The similarities that I see are that they were both lists of planets from a fictional universe without any real world information or secondary sources. Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]]

• Strong Delete fails WP:FICTION and WP:V, no sources for real world notabilty, none of the keep votes has any policy based reason to keep the article. Secret ^account 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely. Keeping articles like this is setting a dangerous precedent that we can have lists of everything. None of the "keep" arguments state how it meets Wiki policy other that just asserting that this is an "important aspect of a D&D campaign setting". I don't mean to want to delete just because I have no inherent interest in this, but the scope of audience is too small and the sub-sub-sub level of minutia is just too great. It's clear that this is a personal issue to some of you; I recommend not bringing personal bias into the picture as it's pretty obvious when it happens and it does nothing but weaken the argument. Merge it into some larger existing article if you wish, but I don't see any way this merits a separate article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a suitable reason for deletion. It's funny how people get a little personal when you start dismissing their interests as "sub-sub-sub level of minutia"? Pray tell, what is the scope of the audience? Just how many people play these games?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Response Yes, you were who I was referring to as the one having a personal issue with this. It's pretty clear you have a vested interest in keeping this article and we acknowledge that you are a pretty big D&D fan. However, saying inflammatory things like "it's funny when," and "that makes about as much sense," doesn't help your cause. Repeated edit battles also do not. It appears sophomoric and it's easy to dismiss. What is the scope of the audience? In my opinion, the scope is limited to people who not only play D&D, but people who play D&D in this certain world. How many people play these games? I don't know, I can't find out, and that helps my argument - we have no real way of establishing notability.

::I have interests in things that shouldn't be on Wiki; for example, I am a rock climber and I climb a LOT at certain crags in and around Phoenix. I can discuss the vagaries and textures of certain routes for hours. It has great personal interest to me. However, I'm fairly confident that that sort of information is not appropriate for Wiki. Remember, popularity and importance do not necessarily imply notability, although they could correlate positively. Also, remember that Wiki is consensus based and not always a strict interpretation of cast-in-stone rules - meaning that those of us who aren't "in the know" about this article's subject have a right to cast our deletion opinions. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::You don't like me saying that "it's funny when"? Okay, let me rephrase it: minutia is an argument, "the sub-sub-sub level of minutia" is hyperbole and not conductive to discussion. If you don't know how many people play these games, then you don't know the scope of the audience and have no right to dismiss it on such grounds. If there were ten of thousands of people who could discuss those crags with you, then I'm sure there would be articles in Wikipedia on the subject.

:::As for Wiki-battles, I find it a bit odd that you would go after me, but not Guest9999. Why is not in any way personal for those who spend all their time on Wikipedia searching out articles to delete?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2008 (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.