Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Quendor

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 delete all. No sources, no merge, as noted by a large number of people below. Daniel 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Quendor

Nominating this article, as well as the related Zork articles:

The contents of these are almost entirely in-universe and looking at google searches and any sources on these articles, I could find nothing that satisfies WP:FICT. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of sources is a reason for deletion? I thought it was only ever a reason for tagging an article with {{unreferenced}}. The notability is a consideration for Zork, just as Star Trek Universe-related articles leave their notability consideration to the Star Trek article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-13 15:03Z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no primary sources to indicate the source of this material, and no reliable secondary sources to denote notability. The articles provide no real world content. --Gavin Collins 09:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of sources is a reason for deletion? I thought it was only ever a reason for tagging an article with {{unreferenced}}. As for "no real world content", that's not a deletion criterion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-13 15:03Z
Keep - A lack of sources is a reason for improving an article by adding sources, not deleting it. Brian0918 is correct about this. Rray 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sources, if none exist, is a reason for deletion, as notability cannot be proved; as I stated, I could not find any reliable sources online that fit the criterion. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kings, Merge the rest to Zork. There's just no call for listing all of the kings of Zork in Wikipedia, even in a larger article. The other articles are stand-alone topics that one might search for, and which should bring the user to Zork. -Harmil 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as Zork is a seminal game in the history of gaming. 132.205.99.122 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both keep and merge into a single overview article but still keep the individual articles if readers want to know more. That way it satisfies any type of reader. The people unfamiliar with the subject or just wanting a brief description can read the overview article (Zork), and those familiar with the subject or just wanting to know more can read the more detailed Kings of Quendor article.--Neverpitch 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Um... merging but keeping the articles really isn't a solution... David Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How isn't it a solution? That would solve everything.--Neverpitch 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all per WP:FICT and WP:NOTINHERITED Percy Snoodle 10:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.