Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulrich von Bek


 * 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 Eternal Champion. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ulrich von Bek

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

Not notable, seemingly unverifiable. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:OR due to lack of sources to satisfy WP:V: the name doesn't seem to come up outside of Wikipedia mirrors and book resellers. Pilaz (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Eternal Champion; bibliography at the least should be reflected there. Many aspects of the Eternal Champion are not notable; not all of them are Elric. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (I'll note that Michael Moorcock's bibliography and characters have overall terrible coverage and could use some serious attention--trimming, merging, and referencing--to bring them up to current standards) Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge This is not at all "seemingly unverifiable", as more or less all of it is verifiable by looking into the primary sources. In addition, it is not correct that "the name doesn't seem to come up outside of Wikipedia mirrors and book resellers". Has there been done a proper WP:BEFORE search, as required in the deletion nomination process, which included Google books and Google scholar? Such a search turns up this academic article as well as a number of secondary sources in book form like, , , and more. Those could be used to verify existing content and go a long way towards establishing notability. The only reason my !vote is not a clear keep is, that in a quick look I did see more plot summary than analysis. So I would be fine with either keeping the stand-alone article or merging it to the Eternal Champion, until someone can point to more analysis. Daranios (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Eternal Champion. The content is clearly notable, as is a redirect, but I'm not sure if it needs a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eternal Champion unless rewritten. The current version classifies for WP:TNT. If this is rewritten, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep with a fallback to merge, but the recurring von Beks turn up enough that it would be nice to have an article focused on them. Artw (talk) 16:44, 15 February 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.