Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baravar Cloakshadow


 * 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 Merge. There were no calls to delete the article beyond the nominator and the consensus in this discussion supported a merger. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Baravar Cloakshadow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NFICT as it relies solely on references from the game's publisher, TSR. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as the Kotaku link indicates some notability, otherwise merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gnome deities. The Kotaku link is valuable, but not enough alone. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gnome deities. The Kotaku source is reliable, but it is just a paragraph and I could find no other independent RS. There is verifiability of basic facts for a merge. Most of the article content is already at Gnome deities, so perhaps just merge the Reception and Kotaku ref there. --Mark viking (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gnome deities - The Kotaku source is better than nothing, but it's three sentences in a listicle. The article also has grammatical errors and cites Wikipedia a couple of times, which doesn't help. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gnome deities. Not enough independent coverage.  I agree with Grayfell's assessment of the Kotaku source.  It's not enough to save the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as not independently notable at all. SwisterTwister   talk  07:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.