Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bazim-Gorag


 * 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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bazim-Gorag

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Slaad. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that for all of these pages, a merge should be proposed before any deletion is proposed. There is no argument that these are, for example, hoaxes or vanity pages. bd2412  T 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge discussions are allowed at AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, they're not. See PEREN for a bit of the history.  In order for a deletion discussion to be started, there must be a good-faith assertion that an article should be deleted, even if a merger is a permissible outcome.  See also WP:SK item 1. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no indication of notability, and I can't find any sources.  This kind of cruft belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * merge or a break-out keep if slaad article becomes too large. Not a hoax. not sure it will get the prerequisite two independent sources. Cas Liber (talk ·' contribs) 22:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note : the claim of independent sources is not met. The only sources are the creator TSR, Wizards of the Coast after WoC purchased TSR, and Piazo which is the officially licensed publisher of D&D content. If you have independent third party sources, please provide them.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * transwiki to the fanboy site. fails WP:N for a stand alone article, so here we should delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete in the great pantheon of D&D personalities, a boss baddie that appears in two dungeons is nothing. I'm not necessarily saying that in order to have an article it has to be at Drizzt Do'Urden level, appearing in several series of books and having a major cultural impact, but it still needs to have notability, and I don't see this as meeting WP:GNG.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Slaad or Delete. No reliable, independent secondary sources, so this fails to establish notability per WP:GNG and can't remain as a stand-alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of sources to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Slaad as a possible search term. It looks like it's getting about 1000 hits a year. —Torchiest talkedits 21:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Slaad as a possible search term. Notability is unclear. Deletion should be last resort per WP:FAILN 42of8 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the only way they could possibly be considered "separate" companies is if you completely ignore the fact that one was bought out by the other and all its related intellectual property rights, and one is officially licensed producer of content. the bar is no higher here than it is for WP:POKEMON. Your ITICCDMPRIPR position is not one that is supported by any rational reading or application of WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 15 September 2013 (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.