Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land (fiction)
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 Userfy to User:The Land/The Land (fiction) leaving redirect going to The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever . The Land (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Land (fiction)[edit]
- The Land (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A lengthy article but one presented entirely from an in-universe perspective, with no sources cited. Any critical analysis of this fantasy setting which does in fact exist can certainly be accomodated at The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever. The Land (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm going to leave discussions about the main issues to others, but if the current article is not worth keeping, then surely this should be redirect rather than delete. PWilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be wise. Actually, I'd userfy the content as well - probably by moving the article into a subpage of my user space, and then change the redirect to point to an appropriate article. Then if anyone wants to take the in-universe material and put it on a fansite or wikia page or something then they can. It's actually very thorough, it just doesn't belong here.... The Land (talk) 08:39, 3 April 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) 00:01, 9 April 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.