Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerafyrm

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 Merge relevant content to EverQuest. Please note, I will be performing a data dump momentarily; the section I create will require serious cleanup (and will be tagged) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kerafyrm

Kerafyrm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Poorly sourced, unnotable gamecruft which may have already attracted original research.

The article only has two sources, neither of which are third party nor valid. One source links to a web archive back to a Sony webpage and the other is a link to a post on a forum. Sources must be appropriate with a number of third party sources and correctly footnoted in order for it to be considered notable, especially to non-EverQuest players and the real world.

The article itself appears to be gamecruft, which is likely to attract original research and has already been tagged for it, something Wikipedia does not welcome.

An article about a video game boss monster with little sources and lack of real world notability, along with the chance of having already attracted original research, have too many issues for it to be fixable. IAmSasori (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Probably lacks support for a standalone article, but as a significant character throughout the Everquest franchise, might find a place in a list article somewhere. As an additional note, depending on how broadly it is interpreted, deletion or redirection of this article about a fictional character at this time might fall under the request for a halt to activities called by ArbCom. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and there is insufficient sourcing to establish notability.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere This is probably excessive detail, but a briefer summary would be appropriate. DGG (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere but not a separate article, per DGG. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to EverQuest, which is the game the article claims the character came from. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into EverQuest. Largely unreferenced and N/N in itself.--Sallicio 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep Sources exist, in dead trees no less that discuss this entity in some detail. See [1] and [2]. Someone with full access to the books should use them to source the article but the basic material looks completely sourceable just from those two pages. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - that second link is to a gaming manual; doesn't count, even if trees did die. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by calling it a gaming manual. The book is a general book about games not a specific gaming manual for any game. It discusses a variety of different things including the history of this wee little beastie, not how to beat it or anything like that. And the first source is in any event impeccable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a book titled Gaming Hacks: a collection of hints and hacks for various computer games, from a publisher of computer manuals. There is one, count 'em one, passing mention of Kerafyrm in the entire volume, on page 104. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It says "Gaming Hacks is the indispensable guide to cool things gamers can do to create, modify, and hack videogame hardware and software"- that doesn't make it a game manual and the book doesn't talk about specific games. Furthermore, the "passing mention" is a full paragraph devoted to the topic noting that it made the people who defeated it "famous" to "thousands of people". That's a pretty decent claim of notability (and again, that's aside from the many mentions in the other reference). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, the gaming manual not withstanding, the article still is in violation per WP:FORUM as over 95% of the article is the author's thoughts (i.e., original work). The article by itself lacks notability (that is, outside of the parent article) and is definately not a Mario. --Sallicio 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No one is claiming this is Mario. Removing the OR you can do at any time. An article in bad shape is not a reason for deletion but a reason for clean up. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Then clean it up and save it! You seem to know a bit (or have a vested interest) about the subject matter. The AfD is not to recruit people to fix articles, it is designed to determine what to do with the article as they stand. If someone feels the need to clean it up (as you seem to do and I have done to a few in the past), then they fix it. So fix it, so it meets WP criteria for inclusion! :) --Sallicio 05:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Everquest. Non-notable at current page. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - 2 cites does not prove notability, but it's probably good enough for inclusion in the parent article. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 21 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.