Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fionavar


 * 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   redirect to The Fionavar Tapestry. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fionavar
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm nominating this for deletion because of a lack of reliable information from independent sources. Without independent sources, there's no objective way to WP:verify notability or create meaningful information that is not just a plot summary. So it violates two key guidelines. It's also a WP:CONTENTFORK for The Fionavar Tapestry. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect I wouldn't have thought I'd be saying get rid of something about Fionavar. Fionavar, which I am just re-reading and wish I'd written. (No, I didn't...) As the info here seems to be in the Fionavar Tapestry article, there's no point in keeping it, but there is point in a shorter title redirect. I've taken the 'unreferenced' tag off the latter, by the way, and added a 'refimprove' as all the refs are subject linked. (Ah, the good old days... Now it's almost grounds for a hanging, drawing and quartering.) Peridon (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the book. Primary sources (the books) can meet Wp:V for elements, they just cannot be used to establish notability. Thus, to the extent that any of this can be sourced to primary sources, then a merger is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to The Fionavar Tapestry per nom. Selective information may enhance the value of the book article, but per nom a stand-alone article on Fionavar is a violation of NOT#PLOT and NOTABILITY. Also a likely search term. – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The nomination clearly establishes the reasons why this article should be deleted. Additionally, the article is written with an in-universe perspective and it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (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.