Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nome Kingdom


 * 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 merge to Nome King. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nome Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, which are WP:NOT sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nome King - Non-notable fictional location, without much in the way of reliable sources that discuss it outside of plot summaries. The article on its ruler (though probably needing some cleanup itself) appears to be in better shape as far as notability goes, so a redirect there would make sense. That single sentence in the "Reception" section could probably be moved over, but the rest of the article, which is pure overly detailed plot summary, should not be. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Other people's plot summaries are transformative, and hence RS. Jontesta and Rorshacma are confusing that with our own WAF and NOT guidelines, which state that we shouldn't write only plot summaries. The sourcing already in the article does appear to meet GNG, once we apply RS guidelines correctly. Merging the king and kingdom articles wouldn't be a terrible thing, but the threshold for an independent article appears to be met and so any such editorial decision should not be mandated by AfD, but rather discussed on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the claims of . He is right about the above. If the page got merged somewhere, most of the known Nomes would have to have their bios transferred to the different List of Oz characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Rorschacma. This needs real world, third party coverage in order to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. No, it doesn't stop being a plot summary when some details are repeated in other sources, and there is already WP:DUE weight on the plot details at other articles. I am neutral on the redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nome King, plot summaries are most certainly not SIGCOV, since an article based on them would fail WP:NOTPLOT. No SIGCOV was available from a search of Google Scholar. If these 'names of individual nomes' do not have any article where they would be due weight then they should simply not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If that were true, wouldn't it be written down somewhere? I've looked; I can't find it. Can you? I stand by my statement. Further, if plot summaries establish notability sufficient for an article, then they aren't the only sources upon which we can rely to draft an article--trivial mentions that would not count for notability often verify some interesting facts. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nome King. Those are closely related and we don't need two articles here. Outside of a single sentence of analysis, there's nothing really useful here outside a plot summary - all of this can survive happily in a section at Nome King. I'd recomend keeping the categories with a redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nome King for an WP:ATD. This article covers a lot of the same material as the main character article and could be WP:PRESERVEd to make that one better. Archrogue (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to Nome King as a viable ATD perPiotrus . FOARP (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nome King. The Nome Kingdom article feels like an unnecessary fork, and two of the references are of the Oz books themselves (WP:GNG). &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator I can consent to a merge, even still believing in deletion. Surprised to see this still open as there's near unanimity supporting a merge let alone full unanimity accepting a merge. Jontesta (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Jontesta, Keep, Redirect and Merge might seem similar to an editor who is arguing for Deletion but they are three different outcomes to a closer and different editors argued for each of these options. I just happened to be looking at this page soon after you've made a remark as the AFD nominator. I expect the discussion will be closed fairly soon now that you have changed your opinion. But many closers just look over the daily AFD log once a day and there is only about half oa dozen of us who close deletion discussions while there are hundreds of AFDs so it might take a while before a closer looks over this who sees a consensus emerging. It's not like this is our day job! Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't meant to discredit anyone's hard work. Just noting that every commenter has mentioned merge/redirect as an acceptable WP:ATD, with the only possible exception of my nomination. So I hope my most recent comment can make it clear that I can accept a compromise. Jontesta (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Nome King per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (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.