Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discworld geography

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. – czar 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An indiscriminate collection of fiction. It's a little hard to describe this, but this page probably belongs somewhere else on the internet, and what genuinely encyclopedic knowledge discussed in impartial third party sources there is could be easily merged to Discworld (world) or Terry Pratchett instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete once people have had the chance to transwiki, save, or duplicate the content. A fine work of scholarship but not suitable for Wikipedia. This is excessively detailed content (WP:DISCRIMINATE), original research (WP:OR), almost entirely derived from the fictional works under discussion (WP:NOTPLOT), and unsupported by third-party sources (WP:GNG). Colapeninsula (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per preceding arguments. There's already three paragraphs in Discworld (world)#The Disc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ritchie333, Colapeninsula, and Clarityfiend, note that if content was merged, we would indeed need to redirect the article to preserve attribution. But I checked the recent histories of the listed potential articles and didn't observe any merge. – czar 21:37, 11 July 2015 (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.