- The Sword of Truth universe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AfD was closed as "no consensus" by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I believe there was a consensus to delete, largely because the arguments to keep were exceptionally weak and should have been ascribed less weight. The arguments for deletion were grounded in policy. The main argument to delete was the lack of evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources; those arguing to keep failed to refute this argument. One "keep" voter contended that third-party coverage was not necessary, an argument that conflicts with the guidelines at WP:N and WP:WAF. Another argument to keep was that sources might exist – an assertion that was not backed up with any evidence. The remainder of the arguments to keep were arguments to avoid, including WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BHTT, and WP:USEFUL. In contrast, votes for deletion were rooted in policies like WP:NOT and WP:V (in addition to the notability guideline). All things considered, the article should've been deleted; however, Kurykh stands by his close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete- I firmly believe consensus should be determined by strength of argument and not solely by strength of numbers, and that the stronger arguments were on the "delete" side. Reyk YO! 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - I really don't see an overwhelming consensus to delete this page, and simply listing off abbreviated policies/guidelines/essays gives the impression of an AFD take 2, which is not what DRV is to be used for. Deletion should occur if the page is completely non-salvageable, and I don't see that upon even a cursory look at the article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read the nomination. I'm not re-arguing the AfD; I'm arguing that the closing admin weighed the arguments in the debate incorrectly. That falls squarely within DRV's purview. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a point earlier about how deletions should not be left purely to the discretion of admins, but allow me to qualify my own point: an admin may make a discretion based on the consensus, or attempts to reach consensus, found within the deletion. Discretion is the key word here, and thus the concept of "weighing" the strength of arguments seems entirely subjective to me. Also bear in mind that the arguments to avoid cited above are based on the viewpoint put forth in an essay, not a policy (and I am aware of WP:ONLYESSAY, which is a tautology in and of itself). Because of this, admins are therefore not forced to give some arguments more credence than others based on a policy mandate. Viewing the correspondence between you and the closing admin, I note that he viewed the arguments with close enough strength that justifies the no consensus close. As it turns out, a sizable portion of those participating in deletion review are in agreement or at least accepting of his use of his discretion. There was no error here. I maintain my position.--WaltCip (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Very few of the keep arguments addressed the nomination of to a lack of secondary sources discussing the article's topic. Without such sources it was argued that the article fails any number of policies (verifiability, reliable sourcing, notability) and I do not think that these arguments were given sufficient weight, especially against keep arguments that inadequately address these concerns. While it was asserted by Nefariousski that these sources exist, no reliable secondary ones were provided during the debate. By a nose count this is a non-consensus debate, by strength of the arguments it should have been closed as delete - Peripitus (Talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as "No Consensus". DGG's argument, that as a sub-article this does need to have the independent sources called or by WP:N and can be reasonably sourced to the primary material is not so unreasonable that it should be discounted. Guidelines are just that, not inflexible rules that must be obeyed in all situations. As such there are reasonable keep and delete arguments balanced in number so that No Consensus is a reasonable close. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete DGGs arguments were so weak (and these were backed up by Edward321) I can only assume that he had not analysed the debate or studied the article in sufficient detail. To create a separate article because the primary article did not have enough space to incorporate the "in-universe" stuff is a terrible precedent because in doing so wikipedia can no longer be an encyclopedic account of the external world and it turns it into a collection of indiscriminate information or fancruft which is lamentable per WP:NOT. Not a single one of the keep voters managed to refute the deletion rationales which were based on policy such as WP:NOT. Therefore this is a poor close. The argument seems to be partly based on the fact that spin off articles do not need to meet notability guidelines and that sources could be found in the future. This is so weak all keep votes could be ignored. Moreover the debate was still very active at the close with a significant amount of information coming very late with no chance for editors to respond. With keep votes lacking any arguments based on policy this should have been a clear delete or a relist pending any keep votes that could be based on policy. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not surprisingly, I think my view , so far from being absurd, is now mainstream here, as the reasonable compromise. It is not common sense nor is it policy nor is it a guideline to think that everything mentioned in an article must be notable. We need some way of dividing a long article. Or do you oppose any mention of things in a fictional universe? that;s a very extreme position indeed. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even setting aside WP:N, the guideline at WP:WAF explicitly requires articles on fictional worlds to establish real-world notability. No one is saying that "everything mentioned in an article must be notable" independently, but I think most editors would agree that the subjects of articles must be notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closure was not deleteThere was no consensus. Consensus means most people are appeased, not that most arguements are most legitimate within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Besides, it remains just as prominent as any other fictional world, it just needs more work. Simply deleting a page because it is not "there yet" seems a little ridiculous. What about articles like List of Forgotten Realms characters? should we automatically delete a page, or should we put a in universe style template at the top and allow for change to come. Or look at Middle Earth even, they establish the real world briefly before going into a much broader in world perspective. Leave the page. The tag has only been on it since October, give people a little time. 4 months is not enough. Sadads (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am also the head of the Sword of Truth Task force. I will spend some time estabilishing real world content in the coming future.Sadads (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to Sadads but this is a taste of the AfD keep arguments all over again. Mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "it can get better" and "give us some more time and we will prove the notability by finding the sources." Clearly not based on policy unlike the deletion rationales. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To this, I bluntly cite WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again in Wikipedia "policy" = guidelines subject to consensus, not "policy" = consensus subject to guidelines. This is a judgement call, and the judgement call by the consensus was that it is too rash of a move. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but in AfD admins are urged to give less (or no) weight to arguments that are not based on policy. In this debate I count 6 for deletion (including nom) and 4 keep. However, I see no keep argument based on sound policy guidelines and no clear refute of the deletion arguments. When there are more for delete than keep and the keep rationales are this weak no consensus is an incorrect close. In this case WP:IAR is overruled by the fact that there are more editors voting delete. We should certainly not ignore the rules in a case when it is clear that there are more people who don't want to ignore the rules than those who do. Polargeo (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse NC Closing this as no consensus seems well within admin discression. Some admins may have closed this differently, however it doesn't look so out of process that it should be overturned. Allow some time for article improvement. At a later date if you still feel it merits deletion see if a second AFD can gather a stronger consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than a third of the debate came within the last 24 hours of the AfD. To close as no consensus, defaulting to keep, when the keep arguments were so weak and in the minority seems wrong anyway but this was a highly active AfD. If the admin had wanted to give the keepers more time to find some policy, or a source to hang their arguments on a simple relist would have done this. Polargeo (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also using "within admin discression" as an argument to maintain a judgement is not fair as it makes individual admins more powerful than they should be. This is a place where there should be unbiased judging of what is the correct close for this debate. Not whether the admin was within some poorly defined bounds of their discression Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe admin discression is the heart of what DRV is and DRV is not. Some afd's are clear cut, others fall into gray areas where admins must make a judgement. DRV is used when the close was against policy, not just because you disagree with it. I look at this AFD discussion and see a discussion that could reasonably called no consensus. Others may see it different, but that doesn't mean that no consensus was clearly wrong. It doesn't mean biased vs unbiased, just that there's not always clear black/white yes/no decisions. It falls into that area where we have to respect the close, and move on. As I said, after a respectable period of time you can try again.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it was a correct close or not? I believe it was not. Shutting down the argument by saying it is "within admin discression" "we have to respect this and move on" without reviewing why you think it is within this discression means little. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you think the keep arguments have some limited merit based on policy? This would be a possible reason for a no consensus to be within admin discression. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is not AFD2. That means that endorsing a close is not the same as adding a keep arguement. AFD analyses the article, DRV analyses the AFD. That said commenting on the afd I don't feel that the keep arguements fall into a category of completly ignorable. These aren't SPA's saying "PLX KEEP MY BAND. I NEEDS WIKI". I don't think it's unreasonable to give them enough weight to call this no consensus, even if not enough to call it a straight keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close as "no consensus". If we went by strength of arguments, I suppose, we wold go with a "keep" close, because there does not appear to be any actual reason to delete in this case, but a fair conclusion would be "no consensus" and as such, there is no reason to challenge that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While I can see another admin closing this as delete, there was no clear consensus either way and there are probably too few no consensus closes. A child article on an in-universe piece is a reasonable fork that will be less likely to have real-world sources and is something accepted as a rule. There was no policy violation here that justifies overturning the decision. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Not clear error. Tim Song (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Could it have been closed another way? Yes. Was the "no consensus" closure within the administrator's discretion? Yes. A "no consensus" more than allows for this to be nominated again in the not too distant future. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I was astonished at the no consensus close, which seemed to be vote counting. The Keep arguments were not based in policy nor consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i think you mean, that you did not agree with them personally. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG that is a poor shot. Polargeo (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen many "spinoff" articles, such as Fictional universe in Avatar, which I would wholeheartedly notvote to keep in an AfD, because there is plenty of sourcing. This Sword of Truth universe article is utterly lacking in secondary sources. I always notvote in AfDs based on the sourcing; in fact, as far as I can see I am the only editor on Wikipedia who does so. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Within administrative discretion. Respectable arguments were offered for keeping. It is much better and less dangerous to err on the side of "vote-counting", which gets criticized too much, than to err on the side of substituting one's own judgement instead of reading consensus.John Z (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. As has been remarked above several times, the keep arguments were not found in policy whereas those favouring deletion were. A majority vote by "a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" according to Wikipedia:Consensus, which is why counting heads is never the right thing to do at AfD. There clearly was an error in closing this debate as policy, rather than mere opinion, clearly was not given its due weight. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy based reason for deletion. Community consensus is overwhelmingly in support of these articles. Far more editors create, edit, and come here to read these articles than the extreme minority that hover around AfDs and even then, they still could not overwhelm the policy based reasons for keeping. All we are left with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is invalid. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? That hardly represents those arguments accurately. The arguments for deletion were based on (a) the lack of sources (WP:N, a guideline), (b) the lack of verifiability (WP:V, a policy), (c) failure to establish real-world coverage (WP:WAF, a guideline), and (d) failure to establish suitability for an encyclopedia (WP:NOT, a policy). Moreover, your claim that the reasons for keeping were based in policy hold little weight unless you can somehow identify in which policies they were rooted. And your claim that "community consensus is overwhelmingly in support of these articles" is, so far as I can tell, speculation. To which consensus, exactly, are you referring? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Far more editors create, work on, come here to read, and defend these sorts of articles than the handful that keep trying to delete them. The series gets over 200 hits on Google Books. After the initial page of results of the books themselves, you start getting into analysis of the characters as seen all over this page of a secondary source. Information that is verifiable through multiple reliable published sources is notable per the Wikipedic definition of the term. When secondary source authors devote several paragraphs discussing the plot elements of a franchise we have a basis to work with to improve an article. The reality of the available sources on Google Books alone is that it has undeniable potential for further improvement and per the policies of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, that is the path we take instead of redlinking. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the series gets over 200 google books hits. We have an article on the series, an article on all eleven books within the series and an article on the author. The importance of the series has nothing to do with the close of this AfD in this case there were no keep votes based on policy and the article was not a viable encyclopedic article. Polargeo (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And further, redlinking is not an issue because anyone wanting to find The Sword of Truth will not find a redlink. anyone searching for The Sword of Truth .... may unfortunately find a redlink. In this case a redlink is in no way detrimetal to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping the article is not detrimental to Wikipedia. By contrast, it provides greater detail of verifiable information of interest to our readership and serves as sort of overview or table of contents to various aspects of the series and is thus more localized and convenient for our readers instead of sifting through the individual novel articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean there can't be any discussion on the issue, otherwise going by pure policy, every deletion would be at the discretion of literally any admin. There'd be DRV backlogs for miles. Even if there was policy error in keeping this article, Wikipedia's integrity isn't compromised; this is as good as any other fictional universe article. Furthermore, if WP:BEGIN is to be followed and the burden of proof is on the deleter, I haven't seen any attempt to even assist in the creation of a Wikipedia article, and instead beyond anything else hostile intentions, which - as pointed out above - enters into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Reasonable call within discretion of closer and DRV is not a defacto eightball we keep shaking til we get the answer we want. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Another dismissive endorse with no proper analysis. This is quite wrong this deletion review was called on grounds of incorrect closure and not "didn't get what was wanted" please actually examine the keep arguments against policy. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards for what and how items should be included remains a moving target and subjective. I feel the keep discussion spelled out reasonably well why the article should be kept and the closer was within their discretion to weigh those as being enough to discount the delete points. This remains not Afd 2.0 that we battleground away driving away people who are less interested in the dramatics. No consensus means it stays for now. -- Banjeboi 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but serious and respected editors (such as DGG in this case) seem to be reading and examining AfDs less and less and voting with their gut feeling rather than any proper analysis of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay sorry DGG I respect you but I do not respect your arguments in this particular case and I believe that an endorse based on "respected editors in disagreement" is extremely poor and goes against all of our principles. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Polargeo, DRV is not AfD round 2. DRV is for blatant errors in closing admin's judgment, or significant new facts that would change the light of the discussion entirely (usually a good while after the original discussion). No new facts have come to light, so we are reviewing only whether the closing admin made a blatant error. His job is to evaluate the sentiments of the community in the matter, and not impose his own judgment. In a discussion of this kind, the closing admin has a good bit of discretion, and this does not fall outside it. RayTalk 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good bit of discretion is exactly where I have an issue. I think this was an incorrect close. Experienced editors seem to be constantly putting down less experienced editors rather than judging the actual close. Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely more delete votes than keep with no keep arguments based on policy is an error to close as no consensus no matter how experienced those editors are. For the deletion review to be so lame as to say we endorse it because an admin has lots of discretion is not a good way to go. Polargeo (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also experienced editors rattle through lots of AfDs throwing keeps and deletes in everywhere. If their keeps are not based on policy or show they have not looked at the issue then those keeps should be disregarded in the same way as any IP's comments would be. Polargeo (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse; closure was not in error. The article is a reasonable spinoff of the parent, per summary style. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This "spinoff" notion never achieved consensus. Nevertheless, I have seen many spinoff articles, such as Fictional universe in Avatar, which I would wholeheartedly notvote to keep in an AfD, because there is plenty of sourcing. This Sword of Truth universe article is utterly lacking in secondary sources, and should have been deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Summary_style_approach; I'm not sure what you mean by this notion not achieving consensus as it is critical to the very longstanding guideline WP:SUMMARY. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When the spinoff idea was proposed, it was not agreed to by everyone, and quite a few editors wanted to restrict it. For example, "List of characters in..." articles were supposed to avoid excessive plot descriptions, and have at least some secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying WP:SUMMARY doesn't reflect consensus? I'm not quite following you. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When people claim in AfDs that an article is a spinoff and should therefore be kept, other people say that it should not be kept because it lacks sources, or that spinoff status is not a magic way to avoid deletion. I have never seen anybody claim it is not a spinoff. Sometimes these spinoff articles are deleted. Therefore I conclude that being a spinoff is not a magic way to avoid deletion, and does not have consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 20:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. As I noted in the AfD, the article cites no sources, thereby failing WP:V, a core policy. Clear core policy violations must be given more weight by closers than any consensus (or lack thereof). Sandstein 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete: I wasn't involved in the original AFD. This seems like a clear !vote count to me, the delete arguments were far more compelling and went unchallenged. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The point to delete was that references were lacking, and none of the keep arguments even offered a rebuttal against this, nor did the few references that were added show notability of the topic as a whole (they mostly referenced small points of the article). There were 7 days to find sources and even a "rescue" tag asking for help. ThemFromSpace 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close as "no consensus" that was how the consensus should have been tabulated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete: There is no sourcing or out of universe information. It is an unverifiable page entirely composed of plot summary.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was no consensus in the prior discussion, and the closer correctly assessed it as such. Despite protests to the contrary, this indeed has become AFD2. The "strength of argument" claim really is a short hand way of indicating that our macro consensus (as reflected in policy) should override the micro consensus as reflected
a in a (presumably faulty) AfD discussion. But as has been proved in RfCs, Arbcom cases and countless AfDs, there this is an area with little macro consensus to start with. If one accepts the spinout notability argument, there is no problem with this existing as a separate article. If one doesn't, it should be deleted. Don't get me wrong, the article is fancruft through and through. However, neither position gained traction in the AfD, and I am unwilling to overturn a closer who did nothing more than recognize that clearly evident fact. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete - The concept of notability does not apply to information within an article, but it definitely applies to the topic of an article and it must be supported by verifiable evidence. The article did not (and still does not) prove the notability of its topic by citing independent, reliable sources which provide non-trivial coverage of its subject. This concern was never adequately addressed in the AfD.
- 122.57.0.252 pointed to the actual works in which the Sword of Truth universe exists, but those works are not independent of the subject.
- Sadads indicated that there might be significant coverage of the topic due to "how the TV show Legend of the Seeker has seriously changed the construction of the universe", but did not provide a concrete example of such coverage and did not object to merging the content.
- Nefariousski pointed to the existence of other articles about fictional universes; Nefariousski's second comment, in response to OrangeDog's comment that "those articles have sources establishing the notability of the fictional universe in the real world", called for improvement of the article and additional sourcing and highlighted the notability of the book (and TV) series. Regarding the first point: while improving an article by adding additional sourcing is appropriate when such sources are available, none of the participants in the discussion offered any such sources. Regarding the second point: no one disputes that the book series is notable, but a separate article about the fictional universe should exist only if the fictional universe is notable as well.
- DGG argued that it is not necessary to (more specifically, that "there is no agreement on the need to...") prove the notability of the fictional aspect of works of fiction. While this is true in general (e.g., it is perfectly acceptable to write a plot summary using only primary sources), it does not apply when the issue at hand is a separate article. "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works," and articles should not be "plot-only description of fictional works".
- Edward321 essentially repeated the arguments of Nefariousski and DGG (i.e., that the article is a "legitimate spinout article" and that "needing improvement is not a reason for deletion").
- Overall, the argument that the article is a plot-only description that fails to prove the notability of its topic was not successfully rebutted, since article size issues do not justify bypassing WP:NOT and the notability guidelines. In my opinion, the strongest argument for keeping the article came from Nefariousski, who pointed out that "just because the sources aren't on the page doesn't mean the sources don't exist". Deleting an article about a notable topic merely because it is currently unsourced is generally counterproductive (unless the unsourced content is potentially harmful or there is no useful content at all); see Wikipedia:Editing policy. However, it has been a long-standing principle of our verifiability policy that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". None of the participants in the discussion, including those who argued to keep the article, offered concrete evidence that the topic of The Sword of Truth universe has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. –Black Falcon (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Major series like this often have articles for their Universe. Those who don't like these articles always argue to delete them. It provides useful information for those who wish a complete encyclopedic view of a series. And every key component of the universe does NOT a thousand references from someone who commented on it, knowing very well reviewers don't go into detail about every single thing, so many things won't be mentioned at all. Dream Focus 12:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant thesis. No one disputes that reviewers don't cover every single detail of a fictional universe, and no one is asking for a reference for "every single" detail of the fictional universe. The standard for notability has generally been accepted as "significant coverage of the topic in two or more independent, reliable sources", and it is this standard which still has not been met. Many references would be a good thing, but at this time no one is asking for a thousand, hundred, or even ten references. –Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as no consensus. The series is popular enough that this could serve as a spinoff article. I've seen this series criticized by fantasy enthusiasts on a number of levels including criticism based on its world building. If the main article gets too big such criticism could fit in this subarticle. Lambanog (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this "could fit"? At the moment there are still NO sources for an "in-universe" spin off sub article. Even now, this far into the DRV, no significant (or any) sources are forthcomming. Also you are endorsing the close based on an AfD keep argument rather than evaluating the strength of actual AfD keeps. As a keep argument your endorse would also fall short, where are these sources you claim to have seen? This has been a common pattern amongst endorsers, to add very weak keep arguments rather than evaluate the close. Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|