Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daemonfey


 * 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 to Planetouched.  MBisanz  talk 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Daemonfey

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article about a fictional race contains nothing but in-universe content and plot summary with no analysis of how it has made an impact in the real world. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This race hasn't made an appearance on the news or in scholarly journals. A standard google search brings up no reliable sources that are needed for verification. As this article currently has no reliable sources it is likely to be original research. The only proper procedure would be to delete it for failing WP:V, and WP:N, as well as WP:NOT.  Them From  Space  00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's some big list o' D&D monsters to merge it to. Unlikely any non-primary sources exist. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content into Planetouched (an article which, admittedly, has similar issues at this time, but one which will be much easier to improve should anyone get around to it), and redirect the article. The D&D WikiProject has been trying to get articles like this properly merged into better locations, since they really aren't notable on their own, and this is just one we haven't done yet. Thanks to the nominator for doing some research regarding the topic before nominating it; there really aren't enough people that do that. :( Anyway, I don't think that it's original research, since it should all be verifiable using primary sources, but because of that sourcing issue a merge would probably be the most appropriate course of action, in my opinion. And besides, for a patently WP:ATA reason, what's the point in deleting content if it can be preserved with a merge, or even a redirect? –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to look for a suitable page to redirect to but there weren't any encyclopedic pages that I found where that could fit. As you mentioned the Planetouched article isn't the greatest either.  Them From  Space  02:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the Planetouched article should be much easier to establish the notability of and make it encyclopedic, as it is a much more encompassing term in the D&D universe and so should have more references, once someone really does some work on it. On its own, this article's notability cannot be established, but if its most relevant points were merged it can probably strengthen Planetouched so that it is easier to work on in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * merge the first two paragraphs and then redirenct per Drilnoth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Drilnoth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as above or to some other relevant target. Preserves info., and while this seems quite arcane to me we have detailed articles on all sorts of fictional creatures from a variety of media. JJL (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut heavily and merge. I agree this is a remotely plausible search term, so it probably shouldn't be a redlink.  Consider doing this speedily per WP:SNOW because I think we may already have a consensus.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question How many books, games, or other sources, have these things been featured in? Are these books bestsellers?   D r e a m Focus  19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not many novels, to many knowledge, and no bestsellers. Just a handful of Dungeons & Dragons supplements. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A small number of game books, and apparently at least one novel. I'd personally be fine with Keeping, but I figure this is one we would have gotten around to merging sooner or later anyway! BOZ (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough information to warrant its own article. Merging it would mean most of of the information would be lost, it getting no more than a paragraph, and perhaps no more than a single sentence.   D r e a m Focus  19:12, 26 March 2009 (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.