Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 universe background history (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @094  · 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1632 universe background history
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Excessive fancraft. Call it 1632craft or whatever, but universal background is excessive. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hatfields and the Thirty Years' War? cheers, Jack Merridew 07:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. Per the July 2007 AFD, the article was supposed to be merged into 1632 series but it seems someone "cleaned it up" instead.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and they summarised it as a "trim" ... that added over 600 characters ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge This article doesn't seem at all different from the 1632 series article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources, content fork designed to violate WP:PLOT. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as weird fancruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as weird fancruft ;) tagged as an "essay" for a year and a half and there's nothing to be done but prune it back to zero . unencyclopaedic. cheers, Jack Merridew 07:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 07:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 07:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure plot regurgitation. Also, given that it was supposed to be merged, editors have known that this article was endangered but failed to include any references. This is a flouting of consensus. Abductive (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If only this was referenced... as it is, it is ORish :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge this and similar articles into 1632 fandom or something like that. NN by itself. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.