Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baronh

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baronh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Crest of the Stars through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no third-party reliable sources given any hint of notability of the fictional elves, separate from the novels themselves. N2e (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's a reputable third-party source: Stephen D. Rogers, "A Dictionary of Made-Up Languages: From Adunaic to Elvish, Zaum to Klingon -- The Anwa (Real) Origins of Invented Lexicons", pp. 32-33. If the description is too in-universe according to some, this can easily be solved in another way than bluntly deleting the whole article, although personally I cannot see how these few sentences are misleading to anybody. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging to article on fictional languages or parent article series the language is used in. That there is coverage in a relaible source further establishes that this should be included even if not in a separate article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A no-brainer really, if the novel is encyclopedic (and there seems no doubt of that) then this information regarding its most notable feature is certainly encyclopedic. A merge might be considered (not even convinced of that), but even considering deletion is ridiculous, frankly. The content should be preserved, and under our copyleft licence that requires that the edit history should also be preserved. Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any properly-referenced information. Doesn't seem sufficient to support its own article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2013 (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.