Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ineritance places

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. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineritance places

Don't think this merits an article - should be part of Inheritance Trilogy. Cordless Larry 11:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tagged for speedy, but does not meet criteria. The issue for AfD is probably (a) whether the Inheritance Trilogy merits yet another article, and (b) whether there are sufficient secondary sources to make this article possible without original research. Guy 11:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 11:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - obviously, because it is spelt wrongly! It also needs a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auroranorth (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: the wrong spelling can be fixed via a move and the cleanup can happen without the article being deleted. --Pak21 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep Every place mentioned in the article has its own article, if this article stays all of the others (most are only 1-6 lines long) can be deleted. The spelling has now been fixed by someone (not me)Shadoom1 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a big improvement over the 10s of articles on imaginary places.--Peta 06:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment there are many Inheritance articles which were apparently merged into this one, and are now on PROD. 132.205.44.134 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this article duplicates List of places in the Inheritance trilogy 132.205.44.134 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• First choice: Declare a trainwreck and relist The multiple merging and proding, redirection, duplication, etc makes this a mess. I'd let the prod's run and clear then relist as my first choice. Second choice: Delete as original research. Articles on fiction need to be sourced to reliable sources other than the source fiction. Yeah, the books are fun to read, and the author was quite young for a modern published novelist when the first came out. But WP:NOR is policy, and so long as the only source is the original works of fiction, and that is all we currently have in sight (even they aren't cited, but I'm assuming this isn't made up out of whole cloth and I do recognize a few bits. GRBerry 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Burning Plains was deprodded. I couldn't make it a redirect as a bot reverted me. IT's all of 2 sentences long. 132.205.44.134 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lots of people going for delete say that it is unnessary to have descriptions for made up places, if you didn't notice, every place mentioned in the article currently has its own article, I think that about 20 articles is more unnessesary than one article Shadoom1 11:43, 30 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.