Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laduguer


 * 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  Dwarf_deities. Merged here instead of the suggested List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; this is a more appropriate location for it. The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Laduguer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons 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) 20:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. A redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, the content fails WP:GNG as all of the sources are primary/non independent (either directly from the company, either the company that created it (TSR), the company that bought out the creator (Wizards of the Coast) or from the officially licensed producer of content, Piazo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and to clarify my position, given the article fails GNG delete merge or redirect would be the options. The proposed merge target suffers from the same bloat of content only supported by primary sources and so a merge is merely an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another to let it stink there. There is no evidence that it is a likely search term that would benefit readers as a redirect and infact seems just as likely to be searched as a typo for a german word and so the selection of a redirect would be problematic. support delete as the preferred option of the three. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:35, 15 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) 21:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the only way they could possibly be considered "separate" companies is if you completely ignore the fact that one was bought out by the other and all its related intellectual property rights, and one is officially licensed producer of content. the bar is no higher here than it is for WP:POKEMON. Your ITICCDMPRIPR position is not one that is supported by any rational reading or application of WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Delete, the topic fails to establish its notability because it is only sourced to primary sources. Our notability guideline requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources", this threshold is not negotiable and it is obviously not met here, and never will be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge – Per NinjaRobotPirate, TRPoD, Folken de Fanel. No independent coverage has been found yet, and the subject doesn't appear likely to generate future independent coverage. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge completed - Please turn this into a redirect to keep edit history; I have already merged the content to Dwarf_deities and dropped the unsourced in-universe details, some of which was redundant. Delete is a last option and at this point would only serve to harm the history of the contributors who worked on the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:55, 5 October 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.