Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yharnam


 * 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 speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yharnam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to show real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Full disclosure, I am the creator. Extremely lazy nom with no rationale besides WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. Article has been clearly heavily referenced and has a fairly large reception section, as well as the potential for much more expansion from one of the most critically praised games ever created. To come to the conclusion that it has no coverage, I'd assume the article was not even read a single time before pressing the AfD button.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't see any reason to delete this well-sourced content. Some might argue that a merge to Bloodborne would be appropriate but I would oppose that as it would then give too much weight to Yharnam in an already very large article. A separate article makes sense. Spiderone  17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge: This should be merged back to Bloodborne, the parent article, given that (1) the parent article is not too long (2) how underdeveloped the development section is and (3) the city itself is not independently notable. The sources are mainly discussing the game or its expansion, rather than this fictional city. OceanHok (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The development section has a lot of room for expansion. Per WP:NEXIST there shouldn't be a discussion about merging just because it's small now.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is enough specifically about the design of Yharnam (not just the game) in the Reception section to pass GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sigh.  Dark knight  2149  20:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - outside sources help article pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough here to pass the minimum standard for GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep mentions in three notable RS means GNG is met. You want to negotiate a merge? Be our guest... but this is not the right lever to move in that direction. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 7 December 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.