Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling 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 merge to Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). There is a clear consensus that this is not a notable topic. However, those advocating delete have not explained why a selective merge is not an appropriate alternative to deletion. As such, and because this is not a vote but an exercise in consensus there is a consensus to address this non-notable topic by merging it into another article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling 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 Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 12:52, 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 - Trivial, in-universe list. Notability for the group is not established. TTN (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The individual gods listed here are not individually notable. Searching for sources discussing the concept of Halfling Deities as a group turns up nothing in-depth in any kind of reliable, secondary sources, thus causing the list to fail WP:LISTN.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (as elements don't need to be independently notable) or merge to Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The elements do not need to be independently notable if the grouping is notable, which needs to be shown by having reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic as a group. There do not appear to be any such sources for this list topic.  Rorshacma (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or 'Selective Merge with Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons), as has some relevent material. N0nsensical.system (err0r?) 09:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Halfling (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) 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- More excessive fancruft sourced mostly to primary sources. Aside from the notability arguments outlined above, this content puts way too much undue weight on fictional trivia. I suggest Wikia would be a better home for this type of content. And I'm not sure about the accusations of bad faith here: were I to suggest some editors derived malicious pleasure from diluting Wikipedia's useful content with sewage or burying it under a mountain of trash I'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI for sure. Reyk YO! 15:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure that some people create hoax articles, attack pages, and the like for fun to upset other people, but although I can only speak for myself, I doubt very much that people create articles on fictional topics with the intention of irritating other people. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure that few people nominate stuff for deletion because they think deleting stuff is fun, yet accusing people of that is just fine and dandy. Reyk YO! 15:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak on the motivations of people who like to delete stuff because they think it's fun, but they've certainly been having a good time lately. BOZ (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I get the good feeling of cleaning out a musty old attic full of fifty years of clutter, but the core motivation is narrowing down the scope of non-notable topics so notable topics can actually flourish. See Category:Video game characters and Category:Anime and manga characters. Compared to ten years ago, you can look at the grand majority of articles and see proper sources. There might still be some problem articles, but it's night and day compared to the hundreds upon hundreds of articles there previously. Without an effort from those project spaces, there is no way they'd be in that state today. TTN (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. Per the article talk page, at least 5 articles have already been merged here as the result of previous merge/delete discussions. While the individual entries themselves may not be deserving of their own articles, inclusion in a list such as this one should not be an issue.  If the problem here  - as it certainly seems to be, based on the arguments supplied for deletion supplied above - is the content of the article (in other words, WP:FANCRUFT), then edit the article.  AFD is not cleanup.  And WP:FANCRUFT is another term for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate argument for deletion.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, FANCRUFT is another term for WP:GNG. The content of this and like articles has no independent, reliable sources, that's all there is to it. You want to keep this? Please find a proper scholarly analysis of the significance of D&D halfing deities. I won't be holding my breath, though. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence that "Halfling deities" as a group have any sort of real-life significance. Just because they are a part of a notable game doesn't make them independetly notable. Not a very active user (talk) 10:42, 6 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 Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.