Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome 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 delete. The "delete" arguments are substantially stronger. They notably invoke WP:LISTN, which is prima facie a strong argument, because the article contains no sources independent from the companies that make the D&D game. Although there may be disagreement about how exactly to apply WP:LISTN, as Lightburst argues, the basis of any notability guideline is sourcing. To refute the arguments for deletion, therefore, the "keep" side would have needed to make the argument that specific sources exist that convey notability on this topic. They have not named any such sources, but only asserted that notability exists. These arguments must therefore be discounted as weak, as must those that do not address the notability issue at all or are pure votes.  Sandstein  12:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION/WP:LISTN. See also arguments presented in related, and already ended with 'delete', Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:14, 2 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  10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or selective merge to Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:ALLPLOT and failure of WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Like the other lists of D&D gods by fictional race, the individual entries are not notable, and there do no appear to be any substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources that discuss the concept as a group. Thus, it fails WP:LISTN.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Grouping fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments for retention of non-secondary sourced material, and accusations of bad faith do not belong in these discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I make no accusations. I merely said that is how it appears to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with Piotrus's arguments. This is all badly sourced plot summary that more properly belongs on Wikia. It gives far too much undue weight to fictional trivia. Reyk YO! 14:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. Per the article talk page, this article is already the target of at least four merge and redirects from previous deletion discussions; while the individual entries may not be deserving of their own articles, mention in a list such as this should not be problematic.  If the issue with this article is the degree/volume of in-world material, edit to reduce it.  AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CLN is not the golden ticket you’re looking for currently, especially where this list has no associated category. It only supports arguments where someone says a list should be deleted because it already has a category. It supports nothing here. This list neither establishes notability or classifies as a proper fork article. It’s simply fictional minutia that doesn’t need to be covered. There is no argument you can make that this is necessary for a general reader’s comprehension of the topic. This is fan specialty information. TTN (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge to Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN additionally as is pointed out above: Per the article talk page, this article is already the target of at least four merge and redirects from previous deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How in any universe does this establish notability? I disagree with but at least understand people trying to use the argument on the main deities lists, but not these piddly little hyper-focused lists. TTN (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". There are no such sources in the article, and no one has presented any in this AFD.  In fact, all other mentions of WP:LISTN so far have all been comments on how this list fails it.  If you are going to cite it as a reason to Keep, do you have any such sources to support that position?  Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of keeping any of this rubbish, but I was referring to the LISTN guideline There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but how does this list fulfill said "informational, navigation, or development purposes"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding the OTHERAFDsEXIST comment in the original nomination, please note that the example provided has been at WP:DRV since shortly after this AFD started, and that a short while ago Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as "merge", so therefore if this discussion does not end in a "keep" or "no consensus", I submit that my merge suggestion is a very reasonable WP:ATD outcome. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 10 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.