Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of Dragon Prince

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

On reflection and after discussion the result was Delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Dragon Prince

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

Since proposed deletion was denied, I am nominating this for AfD. Please note: I do not mean to cause anyone offense through this AfD, so please let this be known in advance. In any case, my rationale is the similar to some other AfDs that I initiated recently:

Through a recent lengthy discussion about the notability of fictional places, an editor Juhachi came to me with a concern that fictional locations with no "real-world" notability probably fail the general notability guidelines. Now, I do not know much about Dragon Prince; please forgive me on that. However, while I have found that other articles about lists of fictional locations do have some reasonable secondary sources that establish its notability, there are no such secondary sources here―only primary sources directly related to the series, but that, of course, does not establish its "real-world notability" that is independent of the source. Dragon Prince may be notable, but since notability is not inherited, I do not know of why this has notability in itself. In any case, while I myself am not completely certain of the merits of Juhachi's reasoning, there are others that have voiced similar reasoning, so do think that at least this line of reasoning is reasonably backed in policy. New questions? 05:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that the best common outcome for these is to merge as a section of the parent article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per failing WP:GNG, having no primary or secondary sources. Notability is not inherited. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just excessive plot summary, i.e. fancruft, that belongs on a fan site rather than in a general purpose encyclopedia, per WP:WAF. Not independently notable and would make the main article excessively long and in-universe-y if merged. Sandstein 06:06, 29 April 2012 (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.