Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olympus (Dungeons & Dragons)


 * 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. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument.  Sandstein  06:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Mount Olympus (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep since Mount Olympus is unquestionably notable, and this is just one set of in popular culture references to the notable mythical mountain. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As always, that is a nonsensical argument. You're essentially trying to give any page even slightly based on real world history or mythology a free pass. This has to establish its own independent notability, and there is no way you can back up your stance with any policy or guideline. At absolute best, you could argue for merging to a pop culture article, although that would be the entirely wrong thing to do. TTN (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG. References to primary sources only. No indication of importance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- poorly sourced fancruft, bloated with excessive plot detail. No indication of real-world notability. Even if the article on the real Mount Olympus were to have an "in popular culture" section (shudder!) none of this content would be suitable to be merged there because of its poor sourcing and terrible content. The idea that fictional things named after things in real-world mythology are automatically notable is ridiculous. Reyk  YO!  09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep due to passing notability guidelines. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)  Blocked sock.  Reyk  YO!  14:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or, if a suitable target can be identified, merge (though likely very much trimmed). I'm not really sure I understand any of the arguments made for keeping the article; if we have third party sources, then that's one thing, but if we don't, what do we really have to talk about? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I would also not objective to a selective merge. The only keep argument is extremely weak and this does not appear to pass the guidelines for notability. Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (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.