Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation (World of Darkness)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation (World of Darkness)[edit]

No independent references are provided to demonstrate notability of this role-playing game terminology. There's no real-world context and it's merely a repetition of plot and game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gears of War 2 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real notability outside the game, borderline game guide. JIP | Talk 13:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I do not know if or not the WoD wiki is a sister project and viable transwiki candidate, but they have an entry. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, to make sure, transwiki — article consists of nothing but in-universe material. MuZemike (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely in-universe. Asserts no notability through significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity per WP:PERNOM being an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and per What Wikipedia is. Article does list at least one reliable source as a reference. The nicely organized table is at least salvagaeable somewhere and as it is not presented in a how to manner, it is no more a guide than a table of elements is. I don't see any reason why not in a worst case scenario we wouldn't at least redirect this to World of Darkness without deleting the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one reference is not independent of the article subject, as it is one of the role-playing game books published by White Wolf. As stated numerous times elsewhere, unfortunately (or maybe that's, fortunately) essays don't help to present reliable, verifiable, independent references to demonstrate notability, which is what this article sorely lacks right now. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some primary sources are reliable and can be used to verify the information. The Google hits demonstrate sufficient enough notability to be salvageable in some manner, i.e. I don't see any pressing need to redlink. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to that same page where you can find WP:PERNOM and scroll down and you'll find WP:GHITS which suggests using "Google hits" is a bad measure of notability (and non-notability), so what Google hits are you referring to, and which ones are relevant here? (Don't forget to remove the mirrors of Wikipedia, Amazon hits on White Wolf books, and hits on White Wolf Inc,, as none of these are independent sources to demonstrate notability, which is the issue here.) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not made up or libelous and it's worthwhile to those working on it and who come here to read it, then it can be kept (even if redirected without deleting the edit history) in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: Because Childe (World of Darkness) was kept, I would like to at least merge some of this information there as they seem somewhat complementary in nature and I believe, for example, that the table would be relevant and helpful in that artgicle. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:16, 7 August 2008 (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.