Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Discworld concepts (2nd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 delete. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Discworld concepts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Minor concepts" seems non-notable by definition. They are described "which only appear in the background, or are not well fleshed out." Also, no real independent sources Blargh29 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lumping a large number of not-notable things into one list doesn't make it notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. i wonder what mr pratchett would think. probably create a fictional planet called wikipederra, where gnomes dressed in ragged wizards cloaks work ceaselessly to create a magical tome containing all the trivial information that exists. as soon as the planet becomes KNOWN for collecting trivia, it disappears into a CognitiveDissonance Hole, and is forever forgotten.(hm, maybe this has already happened many times...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I barely know anything about Discworld and I still lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that fits The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy better than Pratchett's worlds, but I'm sure he'd use it. (No comment on nomination.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering Sir Terry approves of and contributed to The Discworld Companion, which is basically the same thing in paper form... Daibhid C (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A list of minor things. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the individual parts need to find proper homes. Doing it this way does not make much sense. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is going to be deleted, please tell me where these topics should go, because I don't want to rewrite them from scratch. Also please remember that deleting this article isn't going to get rid of this material. Most of these sections started out as tiny one-paragraph articles written by Pratchett fans, and if this article goes, those articles will just pop up again, this time with nowhere to go. So instead of one AFD, you'll end up with 20.Serendi ^pod ous 08:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no other obvious place to put them, then I suppose either the page for the book where they were first mentioned or the main Discworld (world) page. But a lot of them could be seen as subsections of existing Discworld pages (Boffo, for example would fit under Witches (Discworld) and Anti-Crimes perhaps under Ankh-Morpork Thieves' Guild). Daibhid C (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some strategic merging; thaum, knurd, fingles, slood, boffo, DARS and octarine are safe. For now at least. Dark light and anti-crime fit into the running Discworld theme of creating opposites to things, which might make a decent section of Discworld (world) if I could figure out how to include it. Serendi ^pod ous 10:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I made this page years ago and it only exists because merging a whole lot of non-notable articles was quicker and easier than nominating them all for deletion. Rho (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is inherently not notable, no real-world significance demonstrated, no significant coverage in independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a collection of background information in an important cultural work, moving everything to the book where it was first mentioned is unrealistic. Putting the information on slood from Unseen Academicals under The Lost Continent would be ridiculous. 68.40.178.129 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (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.