Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religions of Eberron


 * 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 World of Eberron. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Religions of Eberron

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not establish notability independent of Eberron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to World of Eberron. BOZ (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  transwiki to some fansite that would love this kind of trivia and original research. As for Wikipedia, the subject has no independent sourcing and so fails WP:GNG leaving the options of delete redirect or merge. Since the suggested target article is already full to the brim with in universe primary source trivia, merging would seem to be merely taking editors time and effort to move all of the inappropriate content from one place to another but with no net improvement and merely creating a greater mess on the receiving side. There is no evidence that it is a likely search term to keep a redirect, and given the history of restoration of subjects with no WP:GNG sourcing, any redirect would need to be locked down. Delete seems an appropriate option. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with a transwiki here is that the target would likely be D&DWiki, which has a horrible reputation among the fanbase (for good reason). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page can be improved and can be made into a list that does not need the same requirements as N/GNG under the policy. A supporting list that better deals with the in-universe terms is acceptable under that policy and the size of Eberron would be unreadable as merged. Deletion is not clean up; and while much of the deletes are copy-and-pasted by TheRedPenOfDoom, this one is best reworked. Too much would be lost otherwise; especially with total deletion and not even blank and redirect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lists are also subjected to a specific notability guideline and don't get a free pass for being plot dumps; since the above comment doesn't provide independent sources discussing the items in the list as a group, it is not based on policy, and should be discounted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per ChrisGualtieri. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to World of Eberron, fails WP:LISTN in that the topic has not been significantly discussed as a group by independent sources. Only plot summary, fails WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to main world of eberron article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to World of Eberron. There is zilch to indicate any real-world notability, and all of the sources in the article are primary sources. The keep argument seems to be based on "lots of hard work would be lost" which isn't a valid reason to keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 14 October 2013 (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.