Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravenloft domains

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, no sources, and the article way too long for a merge. This is a Secret ^account 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ravenloft domains

Ravenloft domains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No sign of any secondary sources to show real-world notability. While Ravenloft itself is notable, a listing of the numerous places in it just isn't. Pak21 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — A logical forked component of the Ravenloft article. These are notable within the context of the setting, and therefore acquire much the same level of notability by inheritance. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not inherited --Pak21 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Then my response, in this and all other cases, would be to suggest merging it into the main article and ignore the size restrictions. As per the text in the guideline you note: "On the other hand, if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect." Which, of course, is ludicrous in some cases. So the guideline itself questionable when there is a size limitation. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • This information is simply not notable, therefore does not need to be merged into a parent article. BreathingMeat 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Not notable to you. My preference remains unchanged. If necessary, references from the parent article should be merged. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A treatment of this topic is important for the overall understanding of Ravenloft, although putting an explanation on what domains are and their role in the setting would make the article better rather than having a plain list. Merging this list into the main Ravenloft article would make that article too long. A list-type article is how individually non-notable topics but notable as a set are normally treated in Wikipedia. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, can't see any reason to delete, unfortunately because I am opposed to the inclusion of this content. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clear violation of WP:Plot, merging these articles just forces us to later delete large lists of articles. Ridernyc 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. No secondary sources. BreathingMeat 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge A *short* description of each of the domains in the Ravenloft article should not be too long. I don't think that a separate article is necessary to convey a sense of each of the domains, and their relevance to the setting. Allandaros 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ravenloft 132.205.99.122 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ravenloft After having spent a lot of time cleaning this article up and referencing it, it'd be a waste to throw it all away. Besides other D&D settings such as the Forgotten Realms have lists of their fictional regions, this is no different. Bluebomber4evr 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What is your view on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Pak21 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, what is your view on WP:NNC? I actually agree that the subject does not need its own topic, but the content is informative enough, at least in part, to the subject of the Ravenloft world to be of use in the main Ravenloft article. Barring that, it could also be trimmed and renamed "List of Ravenloft Domains", as is the standard for fictional locations.--Bluebomber4evr 18:22, 7 November 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.