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 Spelljammer#Crystal Spheres. Originally closed as delete, but some editors would like to merge content from this article, so I'm going to re-close it as merge to facilitate that. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spelljammer crystal spheres[edit]

List of Spelljammer crystal spheres (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)

I would have done a prod if this had not been kept at an AfD before, but I feel that this is a clear case of an article that fails WP:GNG, and I feel that the previous AfD failed to address the underlying issues. The basic idea is that all subjects must have some coverage by reliable secondary sources, and WP:SPINOUT does not make any articles exceptions. What must be considered is simply whether or not reliable sources exist that are independent of the topic, and if there are not, then it does not satisfy WP:GNG, simply put. New questions? 13:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and possibly merge some of the content under Spelljammer#Crystal Spheres. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per BOZ. Articles with this level of detail belong on a Spelljammer wiki. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete'. Obvious fancruft. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect - There do not appear to be reliable independent sources to support WP:GNG for this particular topic. If enough sourced material exists to move to a parent article, I could support a merge and redirect. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (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.