Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Iuz (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 No consensus. Whether this is merged or not should be worked out at Talk:Empire of Iuz. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Empire of Iuz

Empire of Iuz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a fictional empire ruled by a fictional character that fails WP:NOT##PLOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Constructive attempts to cleanup or merge this article with another topic have failed or been reverted. Gavin Collins (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, or revert to Merge/redirect - a disruptive single-purpose anon IP shouldn't be enough of a reason to delete an otherwise merged article. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's a rather drastic measure to take, but seeing as this has been merged, I might suggest a delete and redirect to Iuz. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• If I follow this correctly (and correct me if I'm mistaken.) Previously consensus was that this was merged and redirected. Now an IP or several is editwaring reverting the merge. We deal with edit wars with page protection and admin action, not with AFD. Return to Previous Consensus State.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous concensus was that there was "no concensus to delete". There was some mention in the closing of the AfD for a possibility of merging and redirecting. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I see it. It was merged at some point, but maybe not with clear consensus. Still my primary point remains. No need to delete when there's a good merge target.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • It was never merged. Gavin Collins is lying as usual, the fucking jackass. Removing a merge tag is not considered merging. Saving articles is not disruption; being a fucking deletionist is, however. All deletionists should be immediately banned, as they probably work for rival encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta and strive to delete popular culture articles that make Wikipedia unique. Without these articles, Wikipedia will become obsolete, for who wants to read articles on Wikipedia when the topics are already covered in much more reliable encyclopedias? See this, Gavin's so-called "merge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.182.26 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 April 2008
• Delete I am pretty sure I tagged this for speedy deletion (and got it deleted) at least twice in the last 48 hours. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit history extends back to 2006, so this certainly wasn't speedied in the last 48 hours. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you must be thinking of something else. [1] BOZ (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - allow for the constructive edits to actually be completed. Web Warlock (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)'=
  • Any further constructive edits can be performed in the Iuz article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Iuz. All content of this article is appropriate for inclusion in Iuz and both articles are short. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Previous AfD was no consensus, so I can understand this nomination as not merely a case of "keep listing until it's deleted," but nevertheless I still think it's consistent per the First pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; besdies that, it's always best to keep the edit history when merging, for GFDL reasons. BOZ (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.--Robbstrd (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Iuz - no secondary coverage; fails to meet WP:N so shouldn't have its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (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.