Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tisroc


 * 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 redirect to Calormen.  Sandstein  11:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tisroc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Calormen. The current, completely unsourced, article is comprised of plot information and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.  The former is already covered pretty extensively at the main article on the fictional country that the Tisroc is the leader of, and the latter does not belong on Wikipedia.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Calormen per WP:PLOT. The rest of the article is made up of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, subject to WP:NOTFANSITE. -- Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 15:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, article does not meet WP:GNG -- Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 15:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an unsourced article making all sorts of unsourced claims, many of them are either thin air assumptions about Lewis's thought process or pagarism. This article has existed over 16 years. It is exhibit A in why we have no grandfather clauses in Wikipedia. The article has only primary sourcing, which even at that cannot back up the claims. Some of it points more to point out plot wholes and lack of adequate development of the greater world than anything else. Which at a step deeper goes to show exactly why the fact we would have an article on the subject if it was in the real world does not lend itself easily to forcing an article on a similar concept in fiction. I have to admit I doubt that even Rabadash merits an article. That such junk stands for 16 years is an outrage. To be fair there seem to have been no notability standards in Wikipedia for fiction pre-2006. In 2004 using published primary sources that are the fiction that discusses the subject might have been justified, but it is not today. I know enough of Wikipedia to know that there are some historical state leader titles who may in the final balance of things have had swap over more territory than the fictional Tisroc (although the boundaries of Crlomen are unclear) whose articles are much less developed than this one. Carlomen is one of the parts of the Narnia books that make it very clear they were not written with the end known from the beginning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Calormen, this article is nothing but a bunch of original research that fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or redirect as per nom. You could remove the WP:OR, but there are no reliable independent sources to create a notable article that meets the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (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.