Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darksword

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT #1 - absence of deletion rationale. See also WP:SURMOUNTABLE. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darksword

[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)

This article is written like something out of a fan wiki. Minimal sourcing, almost all in-universe. Given that these books hit the NYT bestseller list (albeit only in paperback), there's probably room for an article, but this one is in such bad shape I'm invoking WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No policy-based rationale articulated: WP:TNT is an essay, and invoking TNT as a primary/sole deletion rationale is an admission that regular editing could improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get "an admission that regular editing could improve" it from invoking WP:TNT? Doesn't TNT mean literally the opposite, i.e. this article isn't worth trying to save and needs to be rewritten from scratch? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: You just described not deleting it. WP:SOFIXIT — Smuckola (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: I think what Smuckola meant (and you might have misunderstood), is that you simply may not argue using solely WP:TNT in AfD. You may declare that the subject fails WP:GNG, or some other policy; but you can't solely argue based on the bad state of an article. If we'd e.g. remove all unsourced and in-universe stuff (which I am not suggesting here, it's just a possibility), we might be left with a perfectly fine stub article which should not be deleted. Conversely, we should not delete the bad original article. Does this make sense? I understand why deleting and then recreating migth sound tempting, but we'd lose all content that another editor could base their work on. And let's face it, you probably didn't vote delete because you are going to start a shiny new draft and get it back to mainspace afterwards, right? ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As Jclemens said, this is an invalid filing. This is not what deletion is for. — Smuckola (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expansion of the reception section and probably trimming of the plot summary/characters section. WP:TNT was invoked as a deletion reason, but that essay only proposes deletion if there is nothing worthwhile beyond the title. In a "good" article, the introduction, overview, and what we have so far of reception, as well as a balanced amount of the plot summary would still appear. So deletion is not warranted based on WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2022 (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.