Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominaria

:{{la|Dominaria}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Dominaria}})

Unsourced, in-universe article with no independent notability established. Could not find RS in a google search, though there may be some (first-party?) books that mention it. Has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Perhaps merge to the slightly better sourced Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Ost (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion and the nomination suggests one itself. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• While I agree that AfD is not cleanup, this page was created by a non-active user more than 5 years ago and it does not have sources to demonstrate notability. I did not see a previous discussion that determined if the subject were worthy of an article and—with years of history, less than thirty people watching the page, and no noticeable previous effort to act on the cleanup tags—I thought that this would be a fair venue to discuss the article. I apologize if I overstepped and I have no prejudice against the requested rescue, but the article's state looks more suitable for transwikiing to wikia. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are any of the locations mentioned in reviews of the game, whenever new places that feature them are added? If the article is eliminated, please turn it into a redirect with the history preserved in case anyone wants to export this to some other wiki. Dream Focus 04:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete: wholly unsourced & wholly unencyclopaedic WP:INUNIVERSE WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional localities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Non-notable locations. Looks like all of the characters and locations are not notable, and need to be merged/redirected.

:Gerrard Capashen{{,}} Freyalise{{,}} Jodah{{,}} Serra{{,}} Thran{{,}} Urza{{,}} Volrath{{,}} Yawgmoth

:Dominaria{{,}} Kamigawa{{,}} Mercadia{{,}} Phyrexia{{,}} Rabiah the Infinite{{,}} Rath{{,}} Ravnica{{,}} Shandalar

:If we could get a consensus to merge all of these, that would be great. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

::I don't think you will manage consensus for merging without getting MTG project on board. I looked at Yawgmoth and wizards website had the maximum 1000 search results returned. There is so much information it is very difficult to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. Clearly all the pages at least need a re-write of the introductions and refs.Tetron76 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Well, a merge isn't that intrusive. They are simply moved/redirected. If people find that they can fix the article, and bring it back, they can. As they are, they aren't notable, and should not be articles. I will notify the project. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::::Personally, I would prefer to see them merged and cut down to the information that is needed for an overview. However, there are what counts as a RS for notability issues especially re: www.wizards.com and I am guessing that one or two articles may prove contentious to people with in universe knowledge.Tetron76 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::You know for a reliable source to count for notability, it has to be third party(not affiliated with the subject), right? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::I am aware that sources are supposed to be independent, but I am also aware of the fact that there are print magazines on MTG and that WotC contains content forming more than one online magazine not 'zines. Some of which started out as print versions. WotC also own more than one book publisher name as a result of Hasbro buying pratically everything and some of these books do very well in terms of sales figures. They are also going to make an MTG film according to some newspapers. I am not sure that wikipedia is clear on defining the level of independence if notability allows for comments from experts in the field. While clearly most of the wiki MTG pages should not be there, I am fairly sure that there will be one or two that will be notable for their impact on the game.Tetron76 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• prune and merge to Plane (Magic: The Gathering) most of the content should be removed ie list and descriptions of minor locations in dominaria. Having now done a thorough look for sources. There appears to be no sources discussing from a real world perspective including WotC nor books written on the subject. I found a book based in the realm but doesn't satisfy notability. Since, the domain doesn't appear to still exist from forum chatter, it is clear that the article is overly long. I assume that sites such as wiki.mtgsalvation.com/ will still keep the information and it is not a simple mirror.Tetron76 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete- indiscriminate, in-universe fancruft. There is not a single source in the article, and all attempts to find reliable third-party material appear to have failed. This article contains no material that could be preserved, either as a standalone article or in a merge. Reyk _YO! 01:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge It is not likely that this article will achieve any sort of notability (cf: Tetron's reponse above).Curb Chain (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete- All in-universe info, without even internal links to main info source. My bad for modification of article, but was attempting to do major cleanup before seeing delete tag. Even The Elder Scrolls doesn't have this level of planetary detailing.Brinlong (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge Merge and Redirect with Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Dominaria. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete nothing reliable in this article. Zero third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2011 (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.