Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menzoberranzan (2nd nomination)

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. There's a debate about whether the current sourcing is sufficient, and a large part of the conversation on both sides isn't fully responded to and discussed out. That said, my read of the discussion is that consensus exists to retain the article based on its current sourcing. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Menzoberranzan (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)

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. And frankly, a disservice to Internet users, who should be directed to a much better https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Menzoberranzan anyway _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Fancruft, pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per prior AFD and several sources added since the AFD started, or merge to Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did find one seemingly reliable source that actually does some in-depth analysis of the location in this book, but a single source is not really enough to pass the WP:GNG. I'm actually having a bit of trouble deciding what is the best approach to this one. While the current article is nothing but pure, primary sourced WP:PLOT information on a fictional location that shouldn't be kept, the name of the fictional city was also used as the title of several books that I've found reviews for, as well as a video game that we already have an article on. So, should this article be deleted and have the video game's article be moved to its namespace? Should the article be kept and completely rewritten to be about the coverage of the products that share its name rather than pure, crufty plot info? Should the whole thing be nuked and start over from scratch? Should it simply be Redirected to Drow, where it is already covered? The only thing I'm certain on is that the current contents of the article should largely not be kept, but I'm still undecided on the actual process we should go about when taking care of that. Rorshacma (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - My gut would say it should be able to establish notability, but reality seems to differ. Unless there are sources available, it does not need to be retained. TTN (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. The subject is notable and with a bit of work notability can be satisfied.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search reveals additional secondary sources that mention Menzoberranzan specifically.^[1][2]

^[3][4]. Question: is it normally considered good practice for a deletion nominator to do a quick Google Scholar search for secondary sources before nominating an article for deletion? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That first source is actually talking about the video game of the same name, which I talked about in my above comment, rather than the fictional city that this article is about. That second reference is also not about the subject at all. Its only mention of the city is stating that in the MMO Neverwinter (video game), one of the classes you can choose is a "Menzoberranzan Renegade", and that is it. It doesn't talk about the city at all. Its also from a student-run publication at a college, so I'm not sure if it would even count as a reliable source, in any case. Rorshacma (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Along with the video game, Menzoberranzan has been a the setting (or key location) for a bunch of Forgotten Realms novels & has been detailed in a few D&D sourcebooks. I'll try to list them here (but given the 30+ Drizzt books that I'm not super familiar with, I'll probably miss a few) Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC):[reply]

• Novels: Legend of Drizzt series (Homeland, Exile, Starless Night, Siege of Darkness); Starlight & Shadows series (Daughter of the Drow, Tangled Webs, Windwalker (minor mention at the end)); War of the Spider Queen series (Dissolution, Insurrection, Condemnation, Extinction, Annihilation, Resurrection); Neverwinter Saga (Charon's Claw), Companions Codex (Night of the Hunter, Rise of the King, Vengeance of the Iron Dwarf); Homecoming (Archmage, Maestro, Hero); A Reader's Guide to R. A. Salvatore's the Legend of Drizzt.
• Sourcebooks: Menzoberranzan (2E boxed set, 1992); Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3E, 2001); Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (4E, 2008); Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue (Edition-neutral campaign setting published during 4E, 2012); Out of the Abyss (5E adventure book, 2015)

• Keep per prior AFD it "Transcends a single work of fiction". It needs a lot of work to clean it up but we did that successfully for Neverwinter during its AFD and I think that can serve as a model for what needs to be done with Menzoberranzan. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Primary sources have nothing to do with Notability. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the wrong article, but Neverwinter appears to never have been nominated and has the same issues as this article. TTN (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous AFD and additional sources noted above. (Normally for locations I'd agree with a merge to the appropriate list article, but as noted above there are sufficient external references to make this one independently notable.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vulcan's Forge: per my comment below, there is a problem with the sources (they appear to be in passing and worse, not about this topic at all...)/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. With all due respect, I don't see anything in the keep rationales that goes beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googlehits (I always love learning a new blue ink term) refers to citing the number of hits as an argument whereas I have posted links to sources. My comment about Google Scholar refers to the ease with which I was able to find sources rather than the number of hits. On an unrelated note, thanks to the editor for cleaning up my citations. Is there a reason why, other than gatekeeping,the visual editor doesn't work here? Are my settings off? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: I am not sure about the code (but you can see how it was fixed in the history tab, as well as by whom). But Googlehits also refers to citing random sources that come up in GOOGLEHIT search, without presenting any evidence that said source is relevant. For example, I have reviewed your first source, [1], and not only it is a mention in passing, but it is about Menzoberranzan (video game), which is a separate (if related) topic. This suggests to me that you have not looked at said sources, just typed the search phrase into google, and reported here some reliable looking results without bothering to check what they say about this topic. The second source doesn't want to open for me (Google Chrome warning about potentially malicious website). The third source [2] is the very definition of a mention in passing (in fact, the entire sentence here consists of the mention of the city name, the location itself is hardly discussed outside maybe a single sentence). Sorry, but this is no different from "citing the number of hits" - you just cited four 'nicer' hits, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources and I disagree with your assessment of them. They clearly indicate the importance of the topic of the article as a fictional setting. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This lovely text devotes an entire chapter (chapter 9, "Menzoberranzan: A Perfect Unjust State," to Menzoberranzan^[1] AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your prior sources were bad or worse, and this source doesn't appear in Google Books preview mode, can you provide us with either a quotation or a screenshot, to back up your claim? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're offering a subjective assessment of the sources with which I disagree; in terms of establishing GNG they are more than apt. As for this philosophy book, request it through ILL if you can or look up a review of it through a library database. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pop culture philosophy series that the book is part of, and the book is a collection of essays with an overarching editor - Chapter 9 is on the philosophy of this particular fictional place, written by someone whose only other citation is writing about Star Wars. I haven't seen the article but I've read the summary, and I cannot determine whether that source satisfies WP:GNG as I can't determine if it's reliable or independent, or if it represents WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known series in the field. You can read about it here: https://andphilosophy.com/about/. William Irwin is the series editor and Blackwell is a well-known press. I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall or not but this review of the book is complimentary.13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)'

Yes, that's paywalled. I'm familiar with the series, I received a copy as a gift once of another book. I'm just not entirely convinced of its editorial standards - as you know they cater to fans of specific pop culture subjects, and I'm not sure how I would analyse anything written within those books on notability grounds - I'm not completely dismissing it, but I think there's a very good question as to where it lies on the "fan fiction to reliable source" scale. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If considered a proper source, it definitely provides enough analysis when looking through the text of it. Though that is the only source so far I'd consider to be actually worthwhile, so I'm still of the opinion to redirect. The source definitely would be good to use on a Drow article. TTN (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's definitely a good source. From the paywalled review: "This is not a book written with literature scholars in mind. Nor is it a book primarily about literature. But for anyone interested in taking up the scholarly study of roleplaying games, Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy presents a number of interesting ideas and entry points. The essays are readable enough to work for undergraduate students; the best of them nicely demonstrate how popular culture in general and roleplaying games in particular could benefit from a critical perspective. Certainly, some essays are not brilliant and some authors seem more interested in teaching the reader better ways to play the game. I would also have much preferred separate bibliographies for each chapter, but, on the whole, reading the book was time well spent." Ekman, Stefan. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom, Ekman, Stefan. Extrapolation; Liverpool Vol. 55, Iss. 2,  (2014): 258-261. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I don't have access to the Hummel piece but it receives a mention in a journal review: Canavan, A. (2015). Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 26(3 (94)), 573-576. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26321182

• Quote: "Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy is a new volume in Blackwell's long running Philosophy and Pop Culture series. [...] It appears that Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy has two major goals. The first is the series' overarching goal of demonstrating that philosophy is not a dusty, dry subject. [...] The second is to use Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) to illustrate philosophical questions and to test philosophical theory [...]. In part four, Matt Hummel's essay, "Menzoberranzan: A Perfect Unjust State," uses the infamous Drow city to discuss notions of justice and injustice". Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just don't see this being notable. There's a lot of sources, but it's a fictional place and there's barely any significant coverage - it gets a couple blurbs in a couple book reviews, and there was a video game named after it which was a good sign - but I'd like those who want to keep this to answer, which are the WP:THREE best sources which support its notability? I've gone thru all of them and the reviews above (apart from the second one as my browser flagged me from continuing) and am strongly leaning delete, but want to see where the !keeps are coming from as I've never heard of this before, and there are a number of passionate contributors here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I've added some of the content from Hummel to the lead. I'll supplement the article with additional content from this source over the next few days.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although some judicious trimming (such as the Houses of Menzoberranzan) is in order. The source Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy book already mentioned has some solid coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources added since the AFD started, or merge to Forgotten Realms. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2019 (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.