Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union of Eclipses


 * 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. consensus  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Union of Eclipses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Extremely minor fictional organization. The articles doesn't even try to make a claim of notability, as even it admits the group was only ever even mentioned in two primary articles.  Looking around online, I can find no mention of this group at all outside of mirrors of this article.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure that there's much worth merging (there's already a mention of the group at the target article, and that seems sufficient) but if people would prefer a merge/redirect, I suppose that's not a problem. I don't think it's really necessary, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire and storm: Seriously? The creator of this grotesquely NN article ought to get a troutslap (that is, if he hadn't been an ephemeral editor with only eight articlespace edits over a decade ago).  Speaking as a one-time published RPG writer, do I get to have Wikipedia articles not merely for the one-off articles I wrote, but for individual concepts within those articles?  Of course not; that's absurd.   Ravenswing   13:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:34, 5 January 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.