Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen


 * 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. converted to diambig page. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Wiggles  oinks  waddles  19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

 Strong Delete  Turn into a disambiguation page - Nominator withdrawl. Alan 16  talk  23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep Turn into a disambiguation page - use the page as a broad overview of the concept disambiguation page and link to the more detailed pages. Deletion is overkill, the page has some form that will be useful and deletion is unnecessary.WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well one option I thought of was just redirecting it, but I didn't think it would work seeing as it would have to be redirected to three pages. And I think it is to detailed to be considered a broad overview. I think the page is now pointless. The other idea that crossed my mind was making in to a sort of disambiguous page. i.e. if you type that in, it show you links to the three other pages. Alan 16   talk  23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made that clear, so I'll try again. What I'm trying to say is that the new pages contain basically exactly what is in that page, but also stuff from the geography page, and the magic page, etc. Therefore this page is now irrelevant, as it shows 1/3 of what is in the new pages. It seems pointless to keep it, as all it is doing is repeating what is in the new pages without the extra info. And I think that that makes it a completely pointless keep. There is nothing wrong with the page per se, but it has now just been incorporate in a better fashion. Alan 16   talk  23:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article that is proposed for deletion has now been split into three more concise pages. The current page has no benefit, and only makes researching the subject a more difficult experience. It requires having three or four pages open to find out the same information as in one of the new pages.ScotsmanRS (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (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.