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 List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berronar Truesilver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons 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) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one is fairly well referenced. bd2412 T 18:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Those are all official D&D materials published by the former and current owners of the franchise, so they cannot meet the requirement for secondary sources. TTN (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is an article on Dwarf deities. bd2412 T 20:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• transwiki to some gamer site that loves this kind of cruft. As for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are from the creator or officially licensed products, with no coverage from any independent sources and so the options are Merge, Redirect or Delete. The suggested merge target is already bloated with other cruft primary sourced cruft and has only 1 statement sourced by anything that might be independent and so merging would be a case of shoveling the shit from this stall to the next and not really any improvement, leaving Delete or Redirect. as a potential search term, Redirect would seem the be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember "cruft" is not a reason for deletion per WP:NOCRUFT and referring to things as such is uncivil. Web Warlock (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

calling a spade a spade is not uncivil. and while "cruft" alone is not a reason for deletion, cruft+policy is reason. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete. Either is acceptable. This character does not have any independent notability, and its article is unlikely have anything but primary sources published by the creators. With a lack of independent secondary sources, a merger seems appropriate, but deletion is also acceptable. Adding more sourcebooks will do nothing to establish notability or provide out-of-universe perspective. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities as appropriate. Article has absolutely zero third-party sources, and fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fact is, the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:POKEMON - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close as redirect/merge to Dwarf deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged to the above target by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dwarf deities per WP:BEFORE, already done before. -- Trevj (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dwarf deities or List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, the topic fails to establish its notability because it is only sourced to primary sources. Our notability guideline requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources", that threshold is not negotiable and it is obviously not met here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.