Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shandalar

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shandalar

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since its creation in 2006(!). A Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability. There are many mentions of this word, though many seem to concern a computer game and it's not clear that there is any basis on which an encyclopedia article can be written without engaging in original research.

If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article. Per WP:V, the current content should also not be merged because it is unsourced. I do not object to a selective merger to the extent somebody does find reliable sources and, more importantly, adds them to the article as inline citations.

Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons. Sandstein 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been on my watchlist since its creation back in 2006. I'll kinda miss it, but it's not a well-documented subject and it doesn't have much hope of being verified with real sources ever. Writing is in universe, not sourced, and mostly useless. Some small portion should be merged back into Plane_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Shandalar in spite of the lack of sources, because the basic one sentence or two worth of cites could be extracted from a game manual or the plethora of published fiction. i kan reed (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator, and I cannot find any substantial, independent sources either. Reyk _YO! 08:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't like the thought of deleting such an old article, I can't find any non-trivial RS treatment of it either. Probably better suited to a Wikia project about the game. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2011 (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.