Talk:Sarrukh

Proposed deletion

Against the deletion:

If you delete this page, you would have to delete a lot of similar one. Do you want to?
If the problem is about the Creator Races redirect, just use a disambiguation page
There are references — two of them, not counting official paper material (Serpent Kingdoms in this case)

Please reply to this or I will remove the template in a week.

Thank you
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 07:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David,

There is no deletion proposal for this page. In answer to your questions:

I don't wish to delete any pages, but I would like to see notability established, or this article merged with another topic where notability is in evidence;
Please clarify you point about Creator Races;
It is not clear if the links in this article are references or not as there are no footnotes linking the content with its sources.

Let me know if you require any more information.

Regards, Gavin Collins (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I created these articles, my goal was to create an article per fictional country (and geographical regions) for Abeir-Toril, so notability was not an issue (please see the “[home page]”). The idea was that new material as well as other people would add content, which was not done. Plus, a Forgotten Realms Wikia had been created since then. As long as proper redirect are done and no meaningful text is deleted, I don't have much problem with this.
Something like that: “Creator races may mean: the various ancient astronauts theories in real life or various fictional creator races, such as the sarrukhs, batrachi, aearee, fairy folk and humans in the Forgotten Realms.” Notice that the original Creator races article was much less ambiguous. As often, people deleted information without respect for the ambiguity it would then create.
“External links Official Material” looks pretty self-explanatory to me. Footnotes are great when one wants to mention the source of one sentence. But not for a whole article.

I hope my replies will help you getting a better picture.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 15:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

This is possibly the worst Dungeons and Dragons article I have ever commented on. If I was to cut out the plot summary, the sections with an in universe perspective, the WP:WEASEL words, this article would be reduced to the first sentence only. It really needs to be rewritten with a real-world perspective, or else merged with a topic which has more substance and notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to rewrite it! Hobit (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, you are a fucking dumbass. This article is perfect the way it is. I suggest you leave Wikipedia immediately.

Please nominate for deletion rather than adding meaningless tags

'Nuff said. CSHunt68 9:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want it deleted, that's your right. See WP:AFD. In the meantime, if you want clean-up tags gone, please clean-up the article. --Jack Merridew 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least, this help finding a common ground begore resorting to drastic solution. I agree there is to much tags, but the intention (talking with the writer before acting) is good.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 15:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, these tags are meaningless in context of the article. The tags need to go, or the article does. If you want to nominate it for deletion, please do so. CSHunt68 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68[reply]

Kindly cease removing the tags without addressing the issues in the articles. If you do not understand the issues, the tags offer links to the various policies and guidelines involved and I suggest you read them; indeed, this is one of the purposes of the tags — to educated users about applicable policies and guidelines. --Jack Merridew 07:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my above comment - that, in the context of the article, the tags are meaningless. CSHunt68 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with CSHunt68, in this context the tags that are being removed should be removed. I think the tags at the top are mostly reasonable, but the in-article tags are quite bogus given the topic. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]