Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greyhawk 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Greyhawk 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 10:13, 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  10:13, 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  10:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or selective merge to Dragonlance. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Greyhawk? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! You assume correctly. :) 15:19, 3 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) 14:49, 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 - The grouping as a whole fails to establish notability. There is no argument for it as a valid fork. TTN (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly satisfies WP:LISTN. Also satisfies WP:CLN.  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell us more about this 'clearly'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * List notability states: 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; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been When I review the citations in this article or review search engines I see notability and coverage for D&D deities in general but also for realms-specific deities.  Thus I would not expect many of these individual deities to have articles but this article seems to be the essence of what constitutes a valuable list article for an encyclopedia. In general, the nomination of the individual D&D articles for deletion have more merit than the list articles that are being deleted.  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * comment Pointing to a similar article that has been deleted as a reason for deletion of an article is like an obverse of the WP:OSE argument. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is! BOZ (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly valid list of elements central to a significant fictional setting. 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) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether a list of deities is 'central' to this setting more than lists of spells or towns or such which I don't think we have anymore (if we ever had). If you see any literary (gaming) analysis that discusses the deities of Greyhawk, do let us know, but if not, it's just a POV that this is central rather than fancrufty - and overall, either way, let's face it, this is indeed "very minority interest material". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN (although I would not object to a severe copyedit of the article to reduce overall size and in-world content).Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither supports the existence of this list. CLN does not require lists for categories. It’s simply seen as a positive thing in general. Editors may come to the consensus that a list is inappropriate. I don’t think there’s a single notable article in the category anyway. The list fails to establish its own notability, and there is no argument on how this list helps a general reader any more than three summary style paragraphs about gods and religion in a main article. It’s content for fans by fans that belongs on a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:20, 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, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Josh Milburn. -- GentlemanGhost  (séance)  03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:23, 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) 03:18, 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.