Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul name

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 Elfquest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soul name

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

WP:NN neologism applicable within a fictional context Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elfquest; this seems a minor facet of the world. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of the article does not meet the general notability guideline and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the content has no references and appears to be original research by synthesis, I believe there is no justified reason to keep any part of the article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second Merge. Relevant to Elfquest universe, not to knowledge in general, therefore should not be deleted outright but kept within the context of the Elfquest article. Lee M (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, fancruft. --Simone (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elfquest per the above. Fictional element essentially unique (within my knowledge, anyways) to a particular work, would make a fine search term. Delete voters do not address WP:ATD such as this. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do you merge un-cited content and comply with policy? Toddst1 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, though functionally this would pretty much be a merge. The caveat here, as noted above, is that there is hardly any cited piece of information - just the definition. So make sure that any description of what a Soul name is gets cited to the source, redirect this title, and call it a day. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:35, 7 October 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.