Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lords of the Nine


 * 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 Speedy delete &mdash; G11 (advertising), A7 (notability), G7 (author request - see MacMonster's final coments in this AFD). &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lords of the Nine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable online D&D resource. Fancruft and WP:NOT #2 and WP:NOT #2 and WP:NFT. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also nominating related article Bael The Warlord of Avernus. I do vote delete for both. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very sorry for the trouble, but I was requested to do this by the person behind the creation of The Gates of Hell. I'm not exactly certain if it fits the criteria of being published, as it's only available online.  This is really the first thing I've posted, so hopefully someone else from Dicefreaks.comwill be here shortly to edit the articles to fix the problems. Please hold off deleting the articles until someone more experienced can come along and remedy this problem. MacMonster 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold off indeed! Speedy delete more like. Notability not established. Also the monster above essentially admits that it it spam. -- RHaworth 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - the only way to remedy this this problem is with the delete button. So tagged. MER-C 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the articles then, hopefully someone who actually know what they're doing will be able to do it within the next few days. Sorry for the trouble. MacMonster 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not bite here guys. Play nice. Agreed that it's crufty, though, and probably not worth its own article unless you can provide some sources for notability - see WP:NOTE. Part Deux 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent was to first set up the articles for each of the pages to be linked to, then create a page for The Gates of Hell, but it seems apparent that such things are best left to others.  In retrospect it would seem best to do it all on one page, however I wanted to avoid a post that neared five feet long.  Delete it, someone else will do a better job of it, or merge the articles together, whichever is best.  However, please note that I in no way had a hand in the creation process of The Gates of Hell or it's contents.  The creators are listed on the first page of all the chapters.MacMonster 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine. No one's perfect at this at first. Stay around for a few days and everythign will become clearer. Anyway, you can tag the article with db-author, and it will be speedy deleted for you. Part Deux 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything "wrong" by creating these articles, and there was nothing inappropriate about their content. It's just that the topics themselves are not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. However, they might be perfect for the D&D Wiki website. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 10:55, 28 January 2007 (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.