Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asha'man


 * 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Asha'man

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is completely unsourced and constitutes Original Research in its entirety. There aren't multiple non-trivial reliable published sources about Asha'man. Delete - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge but rewrite. I do see some problems with this article, but The Wheel of Time is notable, and as an important aspect of it, the Asha'man should be covered.  I wouldn't object if this was merged into Organizations of The Wheel of Time or some such article though.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The appropriate response when coming across an article without necessary sources is to insert a tag for the need for sources, not flag for deletion. As part of a larger series especially, it would be inappropriate to just delete it instead of allowing it to be cleaned up. Bbagot 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is part of a larger series, detailing a major aspect of the The Wheel of Time. It should include references to the book pages, though. --MPorciusCato 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite with references: the references do exist, the page authors have just been too lazy to include them. There may be unsourced inferences that would constitute original research as well. Alba 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FICTION which requires a secondary source (to establish notability and at least some 'out-of-universe' material) for a separate article. Notability of The Wheel of Time is irrelevant as to whether this article should stay. Willing to change vote if secondary sources are presented. --maclean 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I love TWoT, but I'm not really sure about this one. I did find, and , as well as . Is it enough to keep the article and make it non-OR? Maybe.  Daniel.Bryant  08:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable and can be verified back to the book; the editors can discuss merges and content on the talk pages. John Vandenberg 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There seem to be no non-trival sources or refs. NBeale 16:16, 26 February 2007 (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.