Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederation of Planes and Planets


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of Planes and Planets

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is extremely bare bones, and the subject matter hasn't improved since the article's creation in July of last year. A search for external links has thus far turned up nothing citable on the surface, nor have Google News or Google Books. Proposing for deletion or at the very least a redirect to the main Neverwinter Nights article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no demonstration of notability. Single independent reference (IGN interview) could support an article on APS/NWNX. If CoPaP is verifiable, then it could possibly be mentioned on such an article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - And this has been talked about before and voted on to keep. How about we read through the notes before we start the same old topic again. Terryrayc (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here I'll do the work for you


 * Yes I know I sound ticked off, I just hate having the same discussion all over again.
 * This isn't for that article however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's for part of the article, we murged several articles into one to make it a more worthwild piece. Terryrayc (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge parts of it into Neverwinter Nights - the best way to get a more solid Keep vote is to introduce some reliable secondary sources. BOZ (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly Merge) per BOZ and the AFD for Avlis, a spin-out from this article. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hum I had it merged with Avlis but someone undid the murge..ah the guy who started Avlis undid the merge..avlis should be merged with copap to ensure everything meets the requirements Terryrayc (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Avlis could always be merged back in, since that was a Keep; would then lend its notability to this one. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sometimes people nominate articles on fictional topics because they're excessively detailed; nominating the others as being bare-bones will suffice to eliminate every one of them one way or another. (FWIW, this actually seems about the right level of detail to me.) Fortunately, neither case is an argument for deletion. The possibility of a merge or redirect should have been discussed elsewhere--even the nom accepts it as a possibility and I see it was never even attempted. (Nor is it likely to be, since its already a merge of some other probably unsupportable articles). Notability plot elements and settings in games are appropriate for a spinoff combination article. Dealing with fictional topics by first merging, and then trying to delete the merged combination article, does not strike me as a reasonable compromise way of doing things. It strikes me as an aggressive approach to removing content that only makes sense if the true argument is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the world a favor and assume a little good faith DGG. The article just doesn't strike me as establishing notability, nor in any of this have I seen someone bring forth enough sources to suggest it. It's effectively seems to be a repeat of a few previous AfD's where "sources are said to exist", but yet none are really provided and the article remains stagnant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being 'bare bones' is not a valid reason for deletion and the nominator only discusses the sources already in the article without making any sort of attempt to find more per WP:BEFORE. I also agree with DGG that this is about the amount of detail you'd expect -- not too much not too little. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 6 January 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.