Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenh

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. W.marsh 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenh

Tenh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article could perhaps be merged into some sort of geographical overview of the kingdoms and regions of Greyhawk, but Tenh is an important element of the fiction that's being discussed, here. Of particular note is the Living Greyhawk campaign (a Wizards of the Coast-sponsored organization of regional teams of gamers around the world) whose central team ("Triad") has published articles such as COR2-11: Escape From Tenh, and others that involve this region in story elements that are now part of the Greyhawk canon. -Harmil 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please go ahead and do so. But if you move this material to another, make sure you add secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, otherwise the potential threat of deletion will not go away.--Gavin Collins 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your consistent use of language such as "opponent" (as I've noted on your talk page) and "threat" in discussing the AfD process and surrounding discussion makes me wonder what kind of goal you have here. -Harmil 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Gavin has been nominating many RPG-related articles for deletion in the past months, and has taken a rather adversarial stance in doing so. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins for more details. -- 68.156.149.62 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Gavin, independent notability is required for the subject of the article, not each topic within it. If Grayhawk is notable, than a discussion in its article of something notable only within that context is acceptable. —Quasirandom 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response On the contrary, every article must stand on its own feet when it comes to primary and secondary sources. This is not even an article: it is 2 sentences, neither of which are sourced. There is no evidence that this ficitional dukedom has any notability at all, even within the game setting. --Gavin Collins 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the problems with this stub is that in needs more electons; it has no charge to start with.--Gavin Collins 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge per Harmil. Rray 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:WAF, merging things just creates large articles that still fail policy.Ridernyc 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Harmil.--Robbstrd 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Harmil. Edward321 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.