Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vahnatai

Vahnatai
F**cruft, and very unlikely to ever be extended to full article length.--Lucky13pjn 02:37, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. (I find it highly amusing that people are now bowdlerizing "fancruft".) I'd say merge and redirect, but the current Avernum article just isn't detailed enough to fit this in. Should it be expanded to full fancruftian glory in the VfD period, I'll change my vote. But then, whoever does that probably won't need this article, so... JRM 02:48, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 * Soon we will find another term for fancruft that seems gentler, then it too will acquire vulgar connotations, and we'll have to find another word, etc. This is merely the first step of the euphemism treadmill. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 04:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

/* Vahnatai */ "Redirect" is unnecessary if a topical page can be made for "Vahnatai"
 * There's nothing wrong with calling something fancruft when that's precisely what it is. If the information is really that important, I suppose it could be merged with Avernum but I think JRM is right in that it would be out of place since the article as it stands doesn't mention anything about the plot, so it would probably be best to just delete it. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 04:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge With the amount of fancruft stuck everywhere hereabouts, this should certainly not be deleted on the basis of being incomplete, etc. - Amgine 05:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: We're not the repository for game manuals. If you bought the game, you have the manuals. If you have the manuals, you can read this there. If the manuals don't tell it, then there is GameFAQs. Foghat.Geogre 14:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I boldly merged and redirected to Avernum. If an editor of Avernum dislikes the addition as excess detail, they can always remove it in a normal edit. If this action is against policy on a vfd article, please simply revert and let me know this is the case below. Michael Ward 15:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: if this is against VfD policy, I propose we amend policy. Removing VfD headers is not normally allowed, but if the article had not been nominated, a merge and redirect would have certainly been allowed (and not only that, I presume people would have welcomed lifting a burden off of VfD&mdash;editing an overview article to weed out unnecessary things is much easier than deleting articles). Further opinions on this to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, please. JRM 19:56, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 * Delete - UFRD (Unnecessary Fan-Related Detail) - Skysmith 09:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Avernum, where the merge works nicely. Samaritan 03:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)