The result was Delete; the problems with this article ( unverifiability, lack of reliable, secondary sources and original research) would be enough to be fatal— coupled with the lack of attempts at salvaging it deletion is unavoidable. Norrath has been mentioned as a merge target, but there is no prose to merge and the article is little but a table of bullet points. — Coren (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite the previous nomination resulted in "No consensus" over two months ago, nearly no effort has been done to fix the issues upon this article.
The article still appears to be plot summaries of unnotable cruft with poor sources.
As a timeline, this article contains in-universe storylines, something which Wikipedia is not.
Such material is still unnotable to the real world and non-EverQuest players.
Containing cruft has a tendency to attracting original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.
Finally, the sources on this article were very poorly done, with some of them not working, and still were not working even since the previous AfD over two months ago. Such sources do not even seem acceptable in the first place, ranging from game manuals to forums.
Despite the previous AfD, there has only been three edits total on this article, none of which attempted to improve the issues other than adding an in-universe template. It is apparently obvious that no effort will be done to fix the problems this article has. IAmSasori ( talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete; the problems with this article ( unverifiability, lack of reliable, secondary sources and original research) would be enough to be fatal— coupled with the lack of attempts at salvaging it deletion is unavoidable. Norrath has been mentioned as a merge target, but there is no prose to merge and the article is little but a table of bullet points. — Coren (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite the previous nomination resulted in "No consensus" over two months ago, nearly no effort has been done to fix the issues upon this article.
The article still appears to be plot summaries of unnotable cruft with poor sources.
As a timeline, this article contains in-universe storylines, something which Wikipedia is not.
Such material is still unnotable to the real world and non-EverQuest players.
Containing cruft has a tendency to attracting original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.
Finally, the sources on this article were very poorly done, with some of them not working, and still were not working even since the previous AfD over two months ago. Such sources do not even seem acceptable in the first place, ranging from game manuals to forums.
Despite the previous AfD, there has only been three edits total on this article, none of which attempted to improve the issues other than adding an in-universe template. It is apparently obvious that no effort will be done to fix the problems this article has. IAmSasori ( talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply