Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventryn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:38, 27 September 2008

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It says here that primary sources can be used as long as no analyses of them is made. For a fictional work, I think it is clear that the original source of the material is all that is needed if it is only described here (since there is no possibility of conflict when it comes to the accuracy of what is released by the original source, since it's clearly fictional). That said, without a reliable third-party source, it may not be notable enough for Wikipedia, and all analysis should be removed, leaving only the descriptive parts if it is kept. --Sydius (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick search and found a lot of sources from Ultima Online-affiliated web sites (sites at least partially dedicated to the subject), and, of course, primary sources for the information. I could find nothing from news.google.com or scholar.google.com, and I doubt there would be anything outside of the Ultima Online community regarding this subject. So it may very well fail notability requirements if primary sources and sites partially dedicated to Ultima Online aren't enough. --Sydius (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:PLOT apply here, as clarified in WP:VGSCOPE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i see no evidence that this character is or every was of any significance. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 02:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
 *'''Delete''' i see no evidence that this character is or every was of any significance. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' or '''merge''' per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources.  Needs to exist in some capacity.  Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.2|63.3.1.2]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.2|talk]]) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)