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 redirect to Heroscape. Content is of course in the history for those who want to merge. Wizardman 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wulsinus (Heroscape)[edit]

Nominated for WP:PROD with the following reason: "Any citations to reliable third-party sources? Topic seems non-notable. See this". I tend to agree, but the article has already been PROD-deleted twice, which means (I think) that we need an AfD to settle this. Sandstein 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (from prodder) -- Didn't realize this had previously been prodded. Article offers no reliable sources to verify claims or even to suggest (let alone claim) notability. --EEMIV (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect — No reason this cannot be one (sub)section of the Heroscape page.

Leaving redirect page will prevent recreation/prod.

This page not notable, but as part of Heroscape has composite notability.

Speedy keep possible too if merged "soon".

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 22:48, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Delete or merge Notability not established or even asserted by this article, no reliable sources, and speedy keep is out the window if there is a single delete vote and/or the nominator has not withdrawn the nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: If you read the entire comment, you'll see that it would only be such if it was a redirect only into a merged article.

In that way, I use the phrase linked to WP:BB. You might have noticed that. It was figurative.

Note, I find your edit summary rather pointed. Please, stay calm.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 05:43, 3 Aug 2008 (UTC)

And I find your obnoxious signature very annoying, please change it. Anyway, the guide to deletion reads "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone."Beeblbrox (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really notable outside the game. JIP | Talk 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a tiny bit to Heroscape and redirect there. No independent sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional race, but (as said) a tiny bit could be merged. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close.

Fixed.

Discussion was academic anyway.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 01:33, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? There is debate ongoing on this page, there is no consensus. What exactly has been fixed and why does providing a link to WP:BOLD automatically mean the debate is over? Please explain. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the page?

Fixed. No longer an issue.

~~And I find your obnoxious attitude very annoying, please change it.~~

This "discussion was going nowhere. Be happy.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 07:28, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: I still think this discussion is merely academic and end result inevitable.

But I appreciate the process. Was just trying to help/simplify.

I do not think a delete is a good idea, especially as that would invite a new page of this type eventually.

Merge.

And B- Thanks for your comments on my talk page; read n' replied.

Take Care, Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 17:24, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, those are the exact reasons to delete... It has no notability outside the game, the "research" is almost as original as it can get (one reference only), and this aspect has no importance in the real world, only within the game.

That's why I say MERGE it into the Heroscape article, which DOES have some real-world notability. Kinda like I did the other day, thinking it was obvious. Per wikipedia guidelines, the final result is clear: this will be deleted...best to merge/redirect it.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{18:18, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

I would not oppose a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable as evidenced by near zero coverage. Although Google isn't always the best measure, the link provided in the nom is especially damning. And about half of those hits are Wikipedia or mirrors. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once again, Grand Roi, you link to an essay while ignoring the accepted editing guideline, which still has consensus. Do you or do you not understand that an essay is just advice and we are not obligated to follow it, whereas an editing guideline is something that should almost always be followed? Beeblbrox (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is heavily disputed and totally lacks actual consensus (see for example [1]) and thus we are not obligated to follow it because it is illogical, anti-academic, unreasonable, and unencyclopedic, and as it pertains to fiction, editors can't even agree whether WP:FICT is an essay, historical, or something else. We can always WP:IGNOREALLRULES and that's what I do when it comes to nonsensical concepts like overly restrictive claims of notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, out of one side of your mouth you would have tell us to ignore all rules, while out the other side you try to create more rules by trying to make other editors conform to advice from essays that you like. And consensus does not have to be unanimous, the fact is that WP:N may not be perfect, but it does have broad support as the best guide we have and it is an established editing guideline. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole Category:Wikipedians_against_notability category of editors are against this bizarre "policy". I am not trying to make anyone follow anything, by contrast and I am trying to defend the work of other editors against those who in all honesty just don't like certain kinds of articles and have a limited vision of Wikipedia that this vocal minority is trying to force upon the larger community. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources in the article, even from gaming sites. In fact, the only Google return that wasn't a Wikipedia mirror was this. So gamers aren't even interested. Don't bother with a redirect, it is an unlikely search term. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was an unlikely search term no one would have created and worked on the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They had to do that because there was a real Wulsinus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Just to recap...

Wulsinus (Heroscape) has been deleted twice in the past through PROD.
A third PROD was converted into this AfD instead, "to settle this".

SUMARY OF KEEPS: (1 "vote")

"notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world"
"WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion."
"WP:N is heavily disputed and totally lacks actual consensus"
"I am trying to defend the work of other editors against those who in all honesty just don't like certain kinds of articles and have a limited vision of Wikipedia that this vocal minority is trying to force upon the larger community"

SUMMARY OF DELETES/MERGES: (8 "votes")

"It has no notability outside the game, the "research" is almost as original as it can get (one reference only), and this aspect has no importance in the real world, only within the game."
"Article offers no reliable sources to verify claims or even to suggest (let alone claim) notability."
"no independent sources in the article, even from gaming sites."
"Notability not established or even asserted by this article, no reliable sources"

Now, before someone yells at me that XfD's are not votes (which they really are, usually), I indicate that information solely to indicate general apparent consensus.

I think the end result is pretty foregone; can we please put this out of its misery?

Recap provided by: Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{18:35, 10 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Okay, so then the consensus seems to be merge and redirect without deletion. I won't challenge that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 10 August 2008 (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.