Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bungeling Empire

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. --BDD (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bungeling Empire

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

I have serious concerns whether this passes WP:GNG as required by notability guidelines for fictional topics. The few refs in the article don't appear reliable, and/or don't discuss the topic in any depths other than in passing; I cannot find anything better in Google Books or in the web (sure, there are some passing mentions, but nothing suggesting this concept had any verifiable impact on our society). If anyone would like to argue this should be kept, please show us which reliable sources discuss this concept in depth, thus satisfying GNG. As it stands, at best I can see this article redirected to Bungeling Empire trilogy, which could be a disambig pointing to the entries on the Category:Bungeling Empire trilogy (an ORish title, but we can probably ignore it...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG as the topic of multiple, independent, reliable in-depth sources. Seems like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED outside the parent games. And given how much info is available, no WP:SPLIT from them is warranted either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)--109.49.167.63 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's the Japanese Wikipedia article... I see stuff much less notable who are still "surviving". But I (random IP) am neutral. Article needs attention from an expert. Redirecting the page sounds fair enough though. --109.49.167.63 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true we have articles that are not notable and we don't have articles that are notable (by Wikipedia's guidelines). However, this reflects very little on this article, as we establish notability for each article individually. As an IP your argument is no more and no less significant than anyone else's. It is the merit of the argument that forms consensus. In this case, the nominator's rationale is that the topic in question does not pass WP:GNG. It could be easily refuted by presenting reliable independent in-depth sources, however there don't appear to be any at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't enough here for a dedicated article. If anything, it may be worth a one-sentence mention in the Brøderbund article, but only if a reliable source can replace the unreliable user-generated Giant Bomb wiki ref. Alternatively, it could go in the Bungeling Bay article, but as it stands there isn't significant coverage on the specific fictional organization in a video game reliable sources search. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. I also wouldn't be opposed to Piotrus's disambig page idea, but I currently prefer deletion. czar ♔ 18:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a single decent source for a Broderbund mention, if it fits anywhere in the article: [1]. Still nothing else useful/reliable for a merge, though. czar ♔ 18:50, 15 December 2013 (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.