Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taelosia

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. Wizardman 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taelosia

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

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft.

The article lacks any sources to establish its notability, suggesting that non-EverQuest readers and the real world would have little to no interest in this article.

It appears to be composed of fancruft which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

It has a list of locations which is what Wikipedia is not.

These scenarios coupled with the lack of sources gives it little reason to stay. IAmSasori (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion, and many consider using the term uncivil, as the link you listed shows. Nominator's assumption that lack of article improvement is shows lack of notability is just that - an assumption. Whether the majority of people are interested in the subject is also irrelevant as to whether it is notable - I suspect the majority of Wikipedia could care less about Millard Fillmore or opera. The Nominator's assumption that the article will attract original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The article containing a list is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fictional location with no assertion of notability or sources. Someoneanother 22:04, 2 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.