Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling (2nd nomination)

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 and redirect title. A reasonable case for merging this content has been made here, and in the previous AFD. I need to also add that I am not merging (for one thing, it isn't decided really exactly where this should be merged. Please use Talk:Snotling to discuss possible locations. Keeper ǀ 76 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling

Article was nominated before for failing WP:NOTE, with a result of "no consensus". Since that time no effort has been made to assert notability - all the sources provided merely mention the subject in passing. There is no real world context to the article, and it still consists almost entirely of WP:PLOT -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent third-party sources which feature the Snotling as a primary subject. Fictional race with only minor import even within the game universe; the notes on metabolism and origin et cetera can be fully covered in Ork (Warhammer 40,000) or greenskin or another extant article which already contains most or all of it anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the many "orky" articles. At least one of them somewhere should meet the criteria for inclusion. Although, I feel I must again point out that they aren't just a 40K thing).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Normal way of handling these, no need to bring it here--talk page consensus is what was needed. DGG (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as I suggested last time. The last AfD has an exhaustive overview of the possible sources and their relationship to the subject (result: nil). The previous close resulted from vociferous and repeated opposition to deletion that largely amounted to WP:ILIKEIT or "it's notable". The article doesn't cite independent sources covering the subject and (just like the rest of the GW sub-articles), few are likely to exist. The article was redirected after the no consensus close but that redirect was reverted citing WP:IAR. Since then, no further sources have been added and no improvements made. IF someone feels this is a likely search term, they can make a redirect after deletion, but this article doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, we have learned since then--myself too, I said keep at the first afd-- and nobody here is proposing to keep the article as is. Now we have consensus for the merge, and it can be enforced. DGG (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific and specialized for Wikipedia. I'm happy for anything that's sourced to be merged as DGG suggests. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the "delete" reasons given in the first AfD. Any "references" appear to be insubstantial, trivial (in the truest sense of the word), and/or not independent of Games Workshop (please see, for example, the analysis of purported references I gave in the last AfD). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge, too specialised for WP (although i've heard of them somehow?!) Remake a redirect if needed. If there are articles on the Orc-type warhammer races, don't they already have all the relevant info, so merging would be purely for show?Yobmod (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: checked greenskins - each race has only a single sentence, and Snotlings already covered, but if that article is to be their only representation, no problem to merge the 1 other cited info from here to there (changed vote).Yobmod (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (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.