Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rithmatics

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rithmatics

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

Article about a fictional concept within a series of fantasy novels, citing no reliable sources to either (a) verify the accuracy of the information, or (b) attest that the concept has any actual notability outside of the novels' own internal world. "Fansite" cruft like this is not what Wikipedia is for — this should either be redirected to Rithmatist series, or deleted. (I'd prefer the latter, since I don't see this having much value as a distinct search term in its own right — anybody who would ever search for this would already recognize the "target" title when it shows up in the autocomplete options anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: No independent notability - the series is notable enough for its own article, this concept isn't. Kolbasz (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Kolbasz and Bearcat. The series certainly seems notable, but the concepts in it do not seem to be covered in reliable sources yet. Wikia would be a much better home to this kind of content. They don't care about reliable sources or notability. A redirect would be alright, I suppose, but it does not seem necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 6 February 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.