Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Lumley deities

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 redirect to Cthulhu Mythos deities. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lumley deities

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is no evidence that this article's subject is notable. Honestly, I have no idea why this is a "controversial" deletion. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this group of fictional deities as a collective. Furthermore, all of the provided sources are primary. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. The topic clearly fails NFICTION. This was deprodded because some people abuse the PROD system and force us to waste our time here; the only controversy is related to why they have not been banned from the process (WP:POINT, etc.) yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please stop the personal attacks on the deprodder. It is unnecessary and does nothing towards making the case for deletion. If it continues I will do a proceduaral close of this AfD to put a stop to it. You may not agree with Andrew's opinions on what is, and is not notable, but he is entitled to them. As it happens, I was looking at the same time at a sister prod, Ramsey Campbell deities. I found some discussion of Campbell's creation of new creatures in the Cthulu Mythos, but not quite enough to tempt me to deprod. I haven't looked at this one (at least not yet), but assuming there is a similar amount of material, there is at least an arguable case for it, so deprodding is hardly an abuse of the process. SpinningSpark 10:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic does not seem notable enough (as a WP:GNG fail) to warrant an article. Also note that fictional entities are also suggested to follow the GNG guideline.

I do agree that an AfD is a better option for this article's deletion than a PROD, and any potential attacks towards any other contributors involved should stop. I do not recommend a procedural close for this AfD as long as editors are willing to focus on the content and not on the contributor. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 12:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Hold This list ties into List of Great Old Ones, a higher-ranking topic which is also currently under discussion. I ask to hold off a decision here, until one is reached about the List of Great Old Ones, and treat it as a subtopic of List of Great Old Ones/Cthulhu Mythos deities. Daranios (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We could just remove the links. If no secondary sources exist, then there is nothing to preserve. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this position is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Obviously this article is lacking in secondary sources, but what would an article about a fictional subject be without plot-summary, which is naturally based on primary sources? - That's to preserve. E.g. WP:NOT says summarys should be contained (only they should not stand alone); Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction lists as elements based on primary sources which are fine to include "background information on fictional creatures"; and WP:PRESERVE: Instead of removing content, consider ... merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article; all that under the premise that the parent topic is fine to include as in WP:LISTN, which is under discussion. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Light Merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities - The topic as a whole, that is the list of deities created by Brian Lumley, does not have significant coverage that would pass either the WP:GNG as an article, nor WP:LISTN as a list. The individual entities are already covered at the main Cthulhu Mythos deities article, as well, making this an unneeded WP:CFORK. The parent article already includes both the real world information presented here (the stories that they first appeared in) as well as their fictional history, and as the vast majority of the information here is not cited to any sources, reliable or not, there is no content needed to Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update - As pointed out below, the little bits of real world information on the stories that these characters originated from are missing from the main list, so it would probably be fine to merge that. I have revised my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could see, the stories these deities appeared in are missing in Cthulhu Mythos deities except for one! If I missed them please let me know. As another piece of real-world information missing in Cthulhu Mythos deities, the attribution ot Brian Lumley is present only for a minority. So there is real-world content to preserve! I can't see how deletion would be better for Wikipedia than a merge. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of them that are included, as information in a footnote instead of the text of the article, but yes, you are correct, it looks like I was mistaken and most of them are missing that information. Rorshacma (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of these have achieved any third party coverage, the way we've seen for some of H. P. Lovecraft's creations. There is some passing mention of one of the deities, but not enough to establish notability of that deity, let alone the whole list. (You'd be better off trying to expand an article about that deity than trying to WP:COATRACK all of them onto one's notability.) But if it would produce a compromise, it's possible that the one deity mentioned briefly in independent sources would be appropriate to clean up and merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of these deities appear in the Enciclopedia de los Mitos de Cthulhu. Playing with Power talks about these deities as a group, but only as one example among several for how these "Lovecraft circle" deities affected and were affected by role-playing games. That together may be too little to keep the list as it is now, but the statement that there is basically no third party coverage and therefore deletion would be preferable to even a merge - even though everything points toward the parent topic being notable - is incorrect. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2020 (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.