Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanali Celanil


 * 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 Dungeons & Dragons deities. Note that there is always room for trimming during the merger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hanali Celanil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't establish notability and only relies on primary sources. TTN (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination is inaccurate--multiple secondary sources are listed. They just don't happen to be unaffiliated and meet the threshold of independence some desire. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? All of those are official D&D resources, so they are all primary. The magazine is licensed by them and presents much of its information in an in-universe tone if that was what you were calling secondary. TTN (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First-party sources, whether secondary or not, are not enough to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * no third party sources to indicate stand alone notability requirements have been or could be met - therefore, transwiki to some gamer site that wants gamecruft, delete or merge any appropriate content to an appropriate target if one exists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete, the article doesn't establish notability in that the topic has not been significantly covered by multiple reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as List of Dungeons & Dragons deities is too long to include any information of substance of it. Has some independent sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Too long" is not a valid argument and cannot trumpt WP:N. If the list is really too long, there's a good deal of overly detailed plot summary that can be trimmed. And there is no independent sourcing, or else you're not using the same definition of "independent" as WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr, we break out material all the time into segments, often with little to do with notability. You have a broader sense of independent than me which suits your goal of trimming stuff, just as my narrower definition suits mine of retaining it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * please explain which of the sources fall under your definition of "independent sourcing". TSR, Inc. is the creator, it is obviously not independent of TSR. TSR was bought out by Wizards of the Coast in '97 (if our article is correct) and so all things published by WotC in 2002 and 2005 are not independent. Dragon (magazine) is the officially licensed publication of D&D owned by TSR/WotC and is therefore not independent. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop trotting out this overly broad view of independence which you seek to render everything ever written by anyone affiliated with an entire chain of successive owners as non-independent. You believe it; I get it.  I don't believe it, any more than SCO owns Linux. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Web Warlock (talk) 01:55, 3 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.