Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erathia

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 Heroes of Might and Magic. causa sui (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erathia[edit]

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

No third-party sources exist that can WP:verify notability. Without significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, it's impossible to write something that meets the general notability guideline and WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heroes of Might and Magic--the game series article--per WP:ATD. I'll note that the article currently appears to have sourcing to meet V, but not N, hence a merger is the most appropriate outcome unless additional sources can be found. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content does not appear useful. The kingdom is not even mentioned on the Heroes of Might and Magic article. I could see creating a Universe of Might and Magic article, but the unsourced contents of Erathia would not be useful as a starting point. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional land does not meet the general notability guideline and any articles about it can only be a summary-only descriptions of a fictional work. I do not think that the content is useful beyond a game guide, so I believe that deletion is the most suitable option. Jfgslo (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (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.