Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Io (Dungeons & Dragons)


 * 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 Dragon deities. Smerge is a marginal winner, alternative is delete, no good evidence supporting a separate article. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Io (Dungeons &

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. There are no third party sources, It has been tagged since 2008 with no evidence of anyone even trying to find sources. One of the thousands of minor minor items in in the D&D that were created before WP:GNG was widely established or it would have been deleted upon sight but now meets continual resistance from the fans who insist on drawing out process for each and every item. So here we are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

History for those who might not be aware: Hence none of the three are independent sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TSR is the company that initially created and marketed the Dungeons and Dragons game.
 * Wizards of the Coast WOTC bought out TSR
 * Piazzo Publishing was officially licensed to publish D&D materials.
 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Dragon deities. BOZ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * so you are suggesting that the fix for there being no third party sourcing for this content is to move it to another article that fails to meet WP:GNG by having no third party sourcing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am. I really don't see why we need third-party RS for a stupid Dungeons and Dragons character/deity. If the primary source invented the entire thing, they'll probably get the details right. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue isnt "factuality" it is "notability - whether the subject has been noted by reliable sources outside of those intimately involved" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * again it's a stupid fantasy game, and the Io is not supporting the whole article.... It doesn't need to meet GNG anymore than say, anyone on the List of Mama's Family characters. If the dragon gods are notable enough to have their own article, and the io is a dragon god, by all means, stick it on that page. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and again, that is directly the issue. There is no third party sources covering "the dragon gods" either. Taking content that fails to meet WP:GNG and mushing it into another article that fails to meet WP:GNG is a terrible non-solution to the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should also propose the Dragon gods for deletion and append it to this AfD. Delete both those suckers. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge the first paragraph or the minimum acceptable amount to Dragon deities. Or delete if you like. I won't lose much sleep. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Much of the mythos D&D developed came from its army of licensed and affiliated novels, so there is a pretty substantial body of . . . stuff using the framework. Who is that author? Salvatore? Anyway, this "new" deity (input/output and punning on Hawaiian aboriginal religion and all kinds of things) is fanstuff. It isn't that there isn't a lot published even about it, but rather that the stuff about it is non-independent. There are cultural studies academics who comment on this stuff, too, but. . . Wikipedia doesn't need to be the -pedia of D&D as well as Pokemon (a jibe at the old days). Hithladaeus (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with TRPoD and Hithladaeus.  A lot of this stuff belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia.  We've got an exhaustive collection of deities, magic items, and characters from D&D that really don't come close to satisfying the GNG.  There's plenty of licensed material, but it's not independent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dragon deities per BOZ. I don't think there's enough here to merit an individual article but don't see a problem with inclusion in a list article.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will ask the same question I asked Boz whose proposal you are seconding - do you actually see as a viable fix for content that lacks third party coverage is to shove it into another article that also lacks third party coverage and is just about as unlikely to ever have such coverage ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:56, 9 June 2015 (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.