Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delnadraei
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delnadraei[edit]
- Delnadraei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find independent mention of this term. If anyone can find a source, I'm not opposed to merging it into the World of Warcraft article, but I can't find one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NEO. Why is this listed as software? It's a social or video game issue at best. Pcap ping 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. I put it there because World of Warcraft is a piece of software. I'll move it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No wonder I didn't see it. Video Games is a separate location, way over there. Now fixed and listed properly. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't even see any in-universe sourcing for this term. Google doesn't even bring up any forum type sourcing. The only thing that comes up is the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Oppose merge. There is nothing to merge, the content is trivial, and there could easily be debate about the spelling on the term anyway. We don't collect trivia anywhere, so there is no target to redirect to either. --Taelus (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleave it like we're Saurfang (Delete)- Would have thought something like this would've been speediable. I guess this doesn't fall under any speedy criteria? Either way, there's nothing redeemable about the article, all one sentence of it. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so- It doesn't fit any of the A7 categories, I can tell what it's about, so neither A1 or G1 fit. I thought about speedy before sending this here, but nothing fit close enough. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even if Wikipedia were a dictionary, it would not be a dictionary of Elvish terms. From video games. With zero Google hits. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G3, hoax vandalism. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call it a hoax, as there is some fact to the claim, nor hasten to assume it is vandalism. It could have been a good faith contribution by someone who simply was previously unaware of the notability policy. --Taelus (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With zero Google hits for this term and this editor's vandalism record as well as his deleted articles I think AGFing is not a real option. Have you checked the facts I just mentioned? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unlikely to have google hits because it is a spoken line in the game which has not to this date been transcribed, thus this could easily be an incorrect spelling. It lacks notability sure, but it is not really a hoax because the word could be spelt like this, and when spoken aloud sounds like it does in-game. But this is deviating from the point, it will be deleted anyway, but is most likely ineligible for speedy. --Taelus (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes the "best" hoaxes or vandalism are the plausible sounding ones. Check the deletion history of inpiscinate. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO i'm not sure it's worth the effort to debate hoax or not. Hoax could be argued both ways. On the other hand I don't see how a close under SNOW could be contested. If someone uninvolved would pull the triger on a snow close we can all carry on with other matters.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes the "best" hoaxes or vandalism are the plausible sounding ones. Check the deletion history of inpiscinate. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unlikely to have google hits because it is a spoken line in the game which has not to this date been transcribed, thus this could easily be an incorrect spelling. It lacks notability sure, but it is not really a hoax because the word could be spelt like this, and when spoken aloud sounds like it does in-game. But this is deviating from the point, it will be deleted anyway, but is most likely ineligible for speedy. --Taelus (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With zero Google hits for this term and this editor's vandalism record as well as his deleted articles I think AGFing is not a real option. Have you checked the facts I just mentioned? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call it a hoax, as there is some fact to the claim, nor hasten to assume it is vandalism. It could have been a good faith contribution by someone who simply was previously unaware of the notability policy. --Taelus (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete - this is WP:NEO through and through, it's an implausible search term, and there's no chance of finding any reliable sources to back it up. --Teancum (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2010 (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.