Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'ni wildlife (0th nomination)

D'ni wildlife was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Contains nothing but templates. RickK 21:46, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

.) I abstain.  --Ardonik 01:02, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * It looks like User:Chucker is wikifying the entire Myst universe, complete with templates, by himself (assuming it's a he.) There are a whole bunch of articles here, some encyclopedic, and others less so.  He's creating skeletal articles for every single item in his Myst franchise template; if we leave him, he'll add dozens or hundreds of articles to the Wikipedia.  I think it's overkill, but we have other fictional franchises with a large number of articles (probably not this large.)  30% of me wants to keep just to see how it turns out, but 70% of me wants to delete most of these ridiculous skeletal articles, drastically reduce the number of pages being used for this project, and purge the whole thing of possible copyvios (cf.
 * I have no idea what this is about, but the fact that it's just a template doesn't justify its deletion. If this is a series of articles about a well-known... fictional... something...  Well, just look at Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.  I say keep for now.  Exploding Boy 02:24, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Franchise could/should be kept (unless ALL fiction is removed), but I do not see the need for this article. The proposed subject should be discussed in any of the existing D'ni Ages' pages: the Edanna page is a better page for the Squee than this page. Delete. Anárion 10:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is visual pleasing, interesting, coherently written, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. This would be a great addition to a Myst website, and I hope the author will move it there. An article for a game, book, movie, or TV series belongs here; articles for every character, card, chapter, or episode is massive overkill unless the fictional work has or had a larger significance. (Hint: Moby Dick does, "Willy the White Whale", the Pokemon character does not. We have a serious purpose here, and it's not masturbatory discussion of your favorite hobby. -- orthogonal 11:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, undecided on the concrete question asked, but feel an uncontrollable desire to rant: All these fictional universe articles deserve to be auto-migrated into a separate namespace - whether Star Trek, LotR or Thomas the Tank Engine. What about merciless_fictional_bot detecting all fictional universes which have grown to more than 5 articles and auto-migrate them to Fictional:StarTrek etc. Pjacobi 23:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * VIOLENTLY disagree. There is absolutely no reason to do that.  I need to add that the only reason that I listed this article is because it's an empty article with nothing but templates, NOT because it's part of a fictional universe.  RickK 23:25, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * What is this? It sure isn't an encyclopedia entry.  Agree with Rick.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's been empty for the better part of a month. We can argue about whether to include "fancruft" on an article that actually contains something. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)