Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voormis

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 Tsathoggua#Voormis. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voormis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor fictional race of the Mythos, that do not seem to have any reliable sources discussing them in any kind of manner. Searching for sources just turns up the actual texts from the stories they were mentioned in, and that is pretty much it. I'd suggest a Redirect to the story that they debuted in, but it does not appear that an article exists for that story. Rorshacma (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the entirety of the article is copied verbatim over at Tsathoggua#Voormis, which makes this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as well. I suppose I would be fine if this article became a Redirect there, but as the information still has the exact same issues of being non-notable, non-reliably sourced plot information no matter where its placed, I'd prefer if it was just removed from there, instead. Rorshacma (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree but I guess this is something to revisit in a year or two given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsathoggua. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and an exact copy of already existing information in another article anyway. Which IMO should also be deleted (the non-notable information that was copied, not the article it came from). --Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tsathoggua § Voormis This article is a redundant content fork. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tsathoggua#Voormis. This is a Content Fork described from an entirely in-universe perspective, sourced only to primary sources and no better sources can be found. Clearly fails GNG and WP:PLOT, but the section in Tsathoggua is a reasonably redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2020 (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.