Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Apothecary Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 the potions blew up the place (delete). Kwsn (Ni!) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Royal Apothecary Society
Unsourced, unnotable gamecruft containing plot summaries.
There are no sources in this article, which may suggest there is no real world notability of this article relevant to non-Warcraft players.
It contains gamecruft that may spawn original research, adding more of the issue of unsourced material.
This article contains plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not needed here.IAmSasori 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
- Redirect to Worshipful Society of Apothecaries. User:Krator (t c) 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT- Delete - Completely un notable, has no references, and no hope of being anything but a poorly composed stub. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:11, 19 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.
