Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyr (Forgotten Realms)


 * 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 keep. If anyone wants to merge I have no objections however overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Tyr (Forgotten Realms)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are multiple valid merge targets: Týr, into which it could become an IPC section, or List of Forgotten Realms deities. This is a longstanding option currently codified in WP:MUSICBIO point 6. (...and one of the reasons that N is not a policy, FWIW)  Merging to either one would create a situation where the other potential merge target was inappropriately shorted.  Tyr, the Norse god, is unquestionably notable, of course. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What is even the point of this argument? Merge to both or neither. It doesn't really matter. If we're in agreement to merge/redirect to some potential target, I'll gladly withdraw it. TTN (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that N is not absolute, and "multiple independent merge targets" is one reason. If Fred has been a part of Band X and Band Y, but is not himself notable, we can't have his name as a redirect to either one, because hatnotes on elements of an article and 2-item DAB pages are something we avoid.  So, Fred gets his own article, even though there's maybe NO independent significant RS covering him apart from either band. This is an analogous situation. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured that's what you were saying, but it's so frankly asinine that I hoped it wasn't the case. You're basically trying to turn a non-issue into a big issue through wikilawyering. Your example of Fred has no bearing on this at all. You have the mythological figure and the character that takes basically only the name of that mythological figure. It's not even just a fictionalized interpretation of the character, just the namesake and maybe light inspiration. The character is its own entity, and the mythology article, if it mentions the character, can link to the article (if notability is established) or the redirect that links to the character list (if notability is not established). There is absolutely no logic in your reasoning beyond trying to force this article to stay through a very convoluted and unnecessary method. TTN (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually just noticed that it is supposed to be a fictionalized version, at least in the original conception of the character, but that honestly doesn't really change anything to make the argument valid. TTN (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, ALL of the deities in the D&D game system were fictionalized versions of mythological entities in the first place. Tyr, Thor, Zeus... so I'm not sure what your intent in highlighting this is.  Pretty much the same as the mythological creatures which formed the core monsters. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My original point was about it being a loosely based nod to mythology rather than the actual character being a fictionalized interpretation of the mythology, but it doesn't even really matter in regards to your argument anyway. The main point is that fictionalized versions of real things do not belong in the article on the real thing. They should certainly be mentioned if they have appropriate weight, but the primary space for them is within the fictional series from which they originate. You cannot conflate them to whatever point you're trying to shoehorn into this. You also mentioned something about a two article disambiguation page, but Tyr already has a dab page with multiple Tyr characters and various other Tyr subjects. TTN (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, for someone who nominates so many fictional deities articles for deletion, you appear to have no familiarity with the origin and development of the topic through primary game sources such as Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes and Deities & Demigods. It's not a "loosely based nod", and anyone with any actual familiarity with D&D knows this. Jclemens (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than a number of Forgotten Realms novel series I've read over the years, I have little knowledge on the subject. This article does not present the topic as anything more than a loosely based character (other than the trivia section), so I had no reason to assume it was directly corresponding to anything. Not that anything is changed by that. TTN (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens, or failing that merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established by 'Publication history' section of the article: this explains how Tyr was an important element of a notable fictional universe for 30 years.  I oppose a merge on the same grounds. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 14:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not how notability works. Primary sources are not able to show that something is notable. Only through reliable third party sources can notability be estabilished. TTN (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (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.