Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherworld (Runelords)

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 The Runelords. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Netherworld (Runelords)

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

I'm a big fan of this series, and I've actually put a lot of work into some the articles connected to it in the past, but even I have to admit this is mostly unecessary WP:CRUFT and clearly fails WP:Notability. In addition, it's been tagged as Unreferenced since 2009. I've gone ahead and merged a bit of the useful information into the main page for The Runelords, which is actually serving as a pretty good general source for fans interested in the series. At the same time I'd like to nominate Magic (Runelords) for deletion as well, for the exact same reasons. Its also been tagged as unreferenced since 2009, and in its case no merging was necessary as the main Runelords page already posesses a good explanation of the magic system for the series. Runch (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - per WP:NOTPLOT. The information presented in both articles is nothing except for pure in-universe plot details. Additionally, I am unable to find any sources on either concept that discuss them in any meaningful way that is not just pure plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the nominator already appears to have done, or once that's completed appropriately, redirect for licensing-compliant attribution. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2012 (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.