Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baklunish Basin

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 keep. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baklunish Basin

Good technical argument here: the reference is basin, and we can't be expected to know if that's figurative or literal, but that it probably, most likely, refers to a basin, or topographical feature. None of the other links in the article do that. So I think we'd be fine with just "Baklunish", and not the basin--we don't really need fictional topographical features on Wikipedia, do we? I would err on the side of delete, because these gaming things really get out of control--let's at least try to set a limit on topography. Is there precedent as to that?-Kmaguir1 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Complicate argumentation, please refer clearly to a WP policy. User:Yy-bo 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please note that there is already a Baklunish article (which is even linked in this acticle--perhaps you should read the entire thing before calling for deletion?), which refers to the Baklunish people & culture. Wikipedia is chock-full of fictional topography. I don't see how this is different, so long as such fictional items can't be mistaken for real things. As for "gaming things really get out of control"--please explain what you mean. I was not aware that gaming articles violated Wikipedia policies any more than other types of articles. Then again, if your statement was simply meant to show a bias against gaming, then you should probably do as the above poster suggested, and "refer clearly to a WP policy."--Robbstrd 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No wikipedia policy has been cited here as an argument for deletion. There are many articles on fictional geography on Wikipedia (numbering in the hundreds, certainly). Here are just a few examples: High Forest, Elysium, River Sirion, Plains of Dust, Skaro. Why single out this one? Fairsing 18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Robbstrd. And unless there is a Baklunish washbasin article possibility somewhere, I don't believe that disambiguation is required either. - Jc37 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Flanaess or Baklunish, neither of which is very long, per WP:FICT point 2: "[n]on-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged". "There are worse articles" or "You didn't nominate X" are bad reasons to keep an article at AFD. And outside of Greyhawk and its spawn, is there anything written about this ? If not, policies like WP:V and WP:OR might be applicable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is an active community of Wikipedians working on these World of Greyhawk references, and this article will continue to grow. There is little doubt that the term is used extensively in Greyhawk materials, and the effort to quash fictional locations seems ill-considered given the fact that the encyclopedia teems with them already (per Fairsing's observation above) and they will continue to be added long into the future.Iquander 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closing comment: verifiability is not a problem, but unless the article documents something really important, it might be better to merge it. And by "important" I mean really important. Remember it's just a fictional place among many in a gaming system. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (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.