Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabiah the Infinite


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 
 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabiah the Infinite

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since its creation in 2006(!), and a Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V. If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article. Per WP:V, the current content should also not be merged because it is unsourced. I do not object to a selective merger to the extent somebody does find reliable sources and, more importantly, adds them to the article as inline citations. Compare Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons.  Sandstein  19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and trout to nominator for not doing so rather than bringing the AfD. Redirects are cheap and it's plain that any redirect would be kept at RfD. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, the content is not sourced and thus not mergeable. Otherwise I'd have performed a selective merger, as I've with another similar article, Dominaria.  Sandstein   05:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. As discussed in the guidelines in WP:NOTCLEANUP, "eventually sourceable" articles should not be deleted merely because nobody has sourced them yet. As Magic: The Gathering is the biggest player in the CCG industry, it should not be difficult to find secondary sources. Further, WP:PRIMARY seems to concern itself primarily with the basis of articles, not entries in articles. As such, a merge is a valid and fair compromise. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- we don't merge unreferenced content, particularly if it's just regurgitated plot summary as this article is. And "there might be sources some day eventually maybe" is not an adequate response to someone who has looked unsuccessfully for them. Reyk  YO!  03:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't remove topics from articles because there isn't an independent reliable source. Non-independent RSes are acceptable once notability has been established.  Are you claiming no such source exists -or- that such a source wouldn't be enough to then mention the topic in a different article -or- something else?   and  (for example) would be a non-independent RSes that cover the topic. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you like to do? Source these articles to non-independent sources and then merge them somewhere else? Why not just write properly sourced content at your preferred merge target? Reyk  YO!  22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We seem to agree this can and should be covered elsewhere. But you'd rather delete the material so people have to start over?  Why not use the material that already exists?  If you are willing to rewrite from scratch, please feel free.   Hobit (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We should merge because this is a valid topic, and our volunteer contributors ought to know (as everyone else should) that they're being given credit for the nucleus of an article that will be found at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) going forward. Unsourced content is a better starting point than no content at all. Cool Hand Luke 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The fictional location does not meet the general notability guideline, so it is not a valid topic. The article itself is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context and it lacks reliable third-party sources. I do not see a valid reason to merge the content since the text in the article is a detailed plot-only description of a fictional work and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, it has zero references and it is completely unnecessary to understand the card game Magic: The Gathering. The mention that it already has in the list Plane (Magic: The Gathering) is sufficient. Since Wikipedia is not a game guide, there is no justified reason to add more extra details to a non-notable fictional world. Jfgslo (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erb? The current content you say is sufficient is a bare link to this article.  Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. To understand the card game Magic: The Gathering it is only needed to mention that, as part of the settings, there are Natural Planes and a small description of what that concept is. There is no need to give a detailed explanation of each of individual planes. Mentioning them in a list is more than enough. If it were up to me, I would remove the description of the planes that have it since most of them aren't sourced and, with no references, they give completely unnecessary details and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. So, it is more than enough to mention Rabiah in the list of the natural planes without adding a description of it. Jfgslo (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2011 (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.
 * 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.