Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furyondy


 * 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. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Furyondy
Stock location for a role-playing game that fails WP:FICT for lack of reliable secondary sources. It is not normally advisable to split out a separate article on a location from the game, as each split lowers the level of notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into an appropriate sub-article of Greyhawk. &mdash; A notable state within the context of a notable setting. 21,300 ghits. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJH. Gavin, can you lay off a little? This is getting relentless and annoying. You're proposing these so fast that it's requiring interested parties to check Wikipedia every day just to keep up with your rampant deletionism. Iquander (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJH.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJH and Iquander. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for being completely in-universe and failing to show how this is culturally relevant or notable at all. Notability is not inherited. - Chardish (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is, regardless of how you interpret your silly guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innerroads (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Notability of the parent does not imply notability of the child. This article must show that it is independently notable and not merely notable because the game itself is notable. - Chardish (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is completely bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.247.31 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B LACK K ITE  17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted after discussion; the first Keep vote claims notability and 21000 Ghits; there are in fact only around 300 unique hits on Google. The other Keep votes are per this vote. Without enough rationaled comments, a relisting is appropriate.  B LACK K ITE  17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Greyhawk. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Only in-universe notability, but seems to have enough to back it up, if only just so. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; Only in-universe notability is reason enough to delete on its own. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator incocrrectly list this as a stock location.  There are ample primary sources, the article just needs sourcing and a bit of cleanup. Edward321 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to be cleaned up but there are references out there. There is more to research can running a Google search, sometimes you have to actually *work* and not slap a tag on something. Web Warlock 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you show us some of these sources then? I (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I had to get my kids to bed. Plus these are in stacks of old magazines I have so I have to go through them one at a time.  Real research takes a while. Web Warlock 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Added four and will have more to add tonight. Still and going through physical stacks of magazine, journals and various books. Web Warlock 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fancruft, no stated external notability. --S.dedalus 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ITSCRUFT, "cruft" is not enough of a reason to delete. I am in the process of getting external sources to establish notability. Web Warlock 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IINFO, this article is clearly utterly non notable. --S.dedalus 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Splitting articles into sub-articles is perfectly acceptable. It prevents articles from becoming overly long. Rray 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Refactor as split from Greyhawk&mdash;As currently written, this article does not qualify as a split-for-convenience from Greyhawk as it is not a cross-referenced sub-topic article. Rather, I would suggest this being refactored into a sub-topic article entitled Kingdoms and cities of Greyhawk with an appropriate Template:Main cross-reference from the Greyhawk section.  The sources provided at present are primary rather than secondary sources; it is my opinion that these would be sufficient for a sub-article of the type suggested here, but not for the current stand-alone article that this currently is. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would support this plan. (no time to do anymore digging for articles from 80's gaming journals) Web Warlock (talk) 15:23, 5 December 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.