Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House L'Envers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. Someone's bound to search for it, which means it meets WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5. I understand that you don't see the point to merging cruft, but why not just redirect it?--hkr (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cause changing an article into a redirect is the exact same thing as deleting it, for all practical purposes. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree with this assessment. Redirects are not the same as deletions. A redirect is a useful guidance tool for readers, a deleted article is a redlink that invites new users to recreate articles.--hkr (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect and delete are somewhat different... and I'd accept a redirect. But we can agree on the problem. No real world significance because no sources exist to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]