Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood-Oath Celebration

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. Those supporting deletion make a strong argument that there is little that could properly be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood-Oath Celebration

Blood-Oath Celebration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Retelling of the end of one of Paolini's Eragon books. Has no redeeming features at all; is non-notable, original research, spoiler, and uncited. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for plot summary, has no useful content. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Hersfold. Operating 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into the novel article from whence it came. --Gwern (contribs) 06:01 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Merging leaves the history. Don't you mean, delete and redirect? Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to delete the history? No, that's not what I mean at all - quite aside from considerations like people might one day decide differently than those commenting on the AfD (and said people would probably be quite interested in the history), if the content is merged back in and then the original history is deleted, you could possibly have GFDL problems. --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 23 September 2007 (GMT)

• Delete Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't the place for overly-long plot summaries, or going into too much detail on one subject. This is exactly what this article does. I see no content which could usefully be moved to Eldest. Una Laguna^Talk 06:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Burntsauce 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• While, I'm not opposed to keeping and sourcing this information, it seems relevant enough for a merge and redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Seems relevant enough: merge to main article as per Le Grand Roi.--SarekOfVulcan 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only because it has enough of discussion on the Eldest page and thus does not need to have the history for a merge. — i ^said 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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.