Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greyhawk Calendar


 * 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 as the general consensus here is that it's not independently notable and is only best known for the series itself; any suitable materials can be merged from the history as needed (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  04:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Greyhawk Calendar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Greyhawk or Flanaess. This article consists of nothing but unsourced fancruft.  If people are able to actually source some of the specific information here to the actual D&D books that info came from, I would not be opposed to a merge, but as it stands,  its just a whole lot of unsourced material that doesn't need to be added anywhere.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flanaess. It's (very) briefly mentioned there, and a little more detail couldn't hurt.  Detailed articles about the in-universe aspects, however, would belong on a dedicated fan wiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flanaess. As a recent AfD was closed in similar way, this should be merged. No reason to have a stand alone article as it clearly is not notable enough.  Ya  sh  !   22:58, 2 January 2017 (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.