Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdoms of Ind

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 merge to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Consensus seems clear; how much should be merged can be discussed on the talk p of the main article DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms of Ind[edit]

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

My primary concern is the fact that this article lacks any sources whatsoever (since 2007). Furthermore the subject of the article fails to fulfil the Notability requirements, and more specifically WP:NRVE. Another policy that also applies is WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook for a fictional setting). The subject is largely unimportant for the fictional setting itself, not being one of the major fictional political factions. The subject is already mentioned in a short and proper fashion in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The North, East, and South and that should be more than enough. This article is IMHO an example of simple WP:Fancruft. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the spot the nom's found. There's no reason I can see a redirect shouldn't exist, and I do agree that tiny articles on NN fictional elements are best combined into big articles covering a bunch of elements. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 31 October 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the section here. There's a lot of fancruft in this article, but there's also a lot of useful info that could be added. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:00, 15 November 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.