Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihannsu


 * 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. I must say, my personal sympathy is with the nominator; but the consensus is clear. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rihannsu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete Do we really need an article about the "unofficial" name for a fictional language from the novels based on a science fiction television? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is about the series of books and their reception, not just the language. (Note:article creator) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable, belongs on star trek wiki. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as illogical. No significant ghits for the term. Alternatively, merge and redirect to Diane Duane. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Diane Duane and Romulan, since it is not "unofficial" as it is a licensed product. It is non-canon which is not the same thing. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as the article is about a notable series of books by a notable author, not merely a fictional aspect of the Star Trek universe. This sort of article (like The Dark Tower (series), Guardians of Ga'Hoole, etc.) is quite well accepted and has a significant category structure dedicated to it under Category:Novels by series, including Category:Science fiction book series. Article is properly referenced, meets the notability and verifiability thresholds, and as Pocket Books markets these as "Star Trek: Rihannsu" books no original research is involved. - Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Dravecky. Article is well-sourced and based on licensed publications. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not Delete It looks like there's notable and sourced information that shouldn't be deleted. I also think an argument could be made to merge this somewhere, but I'm not 100% convinced either way on that.  As an AFD I'd say keep, leaving open the idea of discussing the possibility of a merge on the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; there's verifiable, secondary sources that reference it. The Once and Future Arthur (ISBN 0809568519) is one, non-Star Trek even, such source. Heterotropías: narrativas de identidad y alteridad latinoamericana also shows up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; obviously due to sources. StevenMario (talk) 20:39, 15 February 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.