Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Deity article merge proposal

On notability
The problem here is that people seem to mistake "hierarchy" for "notability". In non-fictional content this is often true. In fictional content it certainly can't be taken to be so. For instance, "Lord Ao - Overgod, gets to keep his article." Nope. Barely ever mentioned in-game. The in-game pantheon is of no relevance to our notability criteria. Article subjects should be judged in and of themselves for notability.

Given the extreme lack of independent sources which are not game guides or sourcebooks, we should not assume that any deity is worth more than a couple of summary sentences until such point as a source can be found to indicate real-world notability. That should provide enough text for one article on the pantheon at first. Individual deities can be split out as their real-world notability can be asserted - not based on how many followers they have, or how many novel plots involve them, but on how many times they are mentioned in a non-trivial manner in reliable third-party sources.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the very least I can agree that Ao is not any more special within the fictional world than any other god, and no more deserving of an article than any of them. :) BOZ (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, so let's start with one article and see if anything warrants a split as it comes up then.  Pagra shtak  17:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can put everything listed under this section in one page. The generic D&D deities in the section following would be their own page(s). List of Dragonlance deities is a good example of how the FR deities page could look. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO Bahamut and Orcus are definitely notable enough to warrent their own articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Taging
Could someone get a bot to add merge tags to all the articles mentioned in this proposal? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Celestial paragons
IMO they should be kept in the Archon, Eladrin and Guardinal articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)