Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldath


 * 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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Eldath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms 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) 23:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. Not independently notable of Forgotten Realms.  Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. As far as Wikipedia goes, this fails WP:GNG in that all of the sources are primary/non independent and so the options are: delete or if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article, merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:04, 12 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) 01:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:42, 19 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.