Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Bethisad

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, as the article fails WP:V and WP:NOR at the moment when I read the article. If you want to work on the article so it passes WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, leave a message on my talk page and I'll give you the copy of the deleted article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ill Bethisad

Ill Bethisad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable online community, per WP:WEB. All sources are self published. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article looks descent enough but mayby with a few more third party sources it should be good. Although it is lacking sources, so I could go either way here.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NNOT. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:NNOT is not a policy. WP:WEB is a policy. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently you haven't actually read the large advisory at the top of WP:WEB: "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. Editors are advised to follow it, but it is not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception." Compare to WP:V which IS a policy. WP:WEB, llike all subsets of WP:N, is JUST A SUGGESTION that not everyone agrees with, and needs to be applied carefully if at all. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I tagged this article with {{primarysources}} back in June 2007, and so far no reliable third-party sources have appeared. I see no reason to suspect that any are likely to be found. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. IB is notable for a number of reasons: it is probably the largest and most detailed althistory project around, it is the home of many, if not most, of the so-called "alternatives languages", including a few languages that have their own article here. It is well-known among amateurs of alternative history and almost legendary within the conlang community. I'm not sure about any press coverage, although I'm sure there has been some, but Ill Bethisad as a whole is definitely not less notable or less well-known than some of the languages featured in it. Even if notability is disputed in this case, we should keep in mind that WP:NOTE is just a guideline and not an iron rule. Obviously, Ill Bethisad does not belong to the kind of subjects that would qualify for speedy deletion, as they don't have any notability at all. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE may be just a guideline, but WP:NOR very much is an iron rule, particularly the part about secondary sources - WP:PSTS. If you ask me, Wikipedia would do very fine with just WP:PSTS, WP:CIV and WP:GFDL.

Anyway, there's nothing in this article that is anywhere near secondary sources. Add some, and i'll withdraw this AFD immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it the axe. Non-notable. Lumberjake (talk) 22:32, 1 February 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.