Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons fey deities


 * 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 redirect to Fey (Dungeons & Dragons). Most "keep" opinions cannot be taken seriously, as they do not address the problems identified in the nomination. But the redirection allows the merger from history of third-party-sourceable material  Sandstein   21:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons fey deities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another listing of D&D gods by race, no indication this passes WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION, WP:LISTN, pure WP:PLOT based on WP:PRIMARY. See also related AfDs: Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities, Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Fey (Dungeons & Dragons). Just noting for the record that Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as merge rather than delete, which is also a reasonable outcome here. BOZ (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Trivial list, nothing to merge as all the references are just for plotcruft rather than real-world perspective.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete- As with the other race specific deity lists, none of the individual entries are notable (at least not the D&D versions), and there are no reliable, secondary sources discussing the concept as a group that would allow it to pass WP:LISTN. There is nothing worth preserving or merging as the article is comprised entirely of plot information sourced only to primary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I admit I am not thrilled at the prospect of deleting these lists; perhaps there are some sources on the individual deities, but they aren't independently notable, and this works as a decent enough compromise between covering them and not covering them. If this must go, perhaps a merge (per BOZ) to the article on fey. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The grouping as a whole fails to establish notability. There is no justification to it being a split. These character are not important enough for the general reader to care about. If Fey was actually an article that looked like it would stick around, I'd be fine with a summary style merge of a paragraph or two, but that looks like an easy deletion candidate. TTN (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Fey (Dungeons & Dragons). As usual, deleting information which can be merged elsewhere is of value to nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nathair Sgiathach or another similar article. This information is valuable to anyone who wants to study the concept of fey within the context of D&D, but it is not really enough material to sustain an article. Michepman (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as per Necrothesp. Daranios (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2019 (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.