Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Language (spells)

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. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Language (spells)

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

A collection of non-notable fictional spells which runs afoul of the principle that Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivia and fancruft. My PROD was removed by an IP, who at the same time added the introductory text about the "Ancient Language." Some of that material might have been appropriate for an article called Ancient Language (Inheritance Cycle), but that's just a redirect to Inheritance Cycle, where the topic is only briefly discussed, apparently because it's not particularly important. I'm not suggesting a merge because this article appears to comprise only OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire- nothing but fancruft. The nominator is correct in saying none of this stuff is salvageable in any way. It's pure original research and excessive trivia. Reyk _YO! 08:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR--MaxEspinho (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I seconded the prod. If anyone wants to add some of the intro text to Inheritance Cycle, fine, but I see no need for it there. In general, and as per WP:FICT, individual plot elements of fictional works should not, IMO have separate articles unless they have quite high notability, or have become significant outside the fictional context. This is also more-or-less OR, although I suppose it could be sourced to the actual books, but then would rest entirely on primary sources. DES ^(talk) 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:FICT: "However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage. ... avoid splitting articles if the new article cannot meet inclusion criteria for topics about fiction." DES ^(talk) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't comply with WP:GNG, or as DES notes, WP:FICT. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wold recommend that this should ne Merged with the article - ' Inheritance cycle ' .

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.