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 Forgotten Realms deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Knight (Forgotten Realms) (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 Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We've done this whole song and dance with this article before. Chain-spamming deletion attempts is just obnoxious. Rogue 9 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that keep founded in anything or just WP:ILIKEIT? The nature of my nominations doesn't matter so long as they remain valid. If I were nominating Drizzt or something, there would be grounds for having an issue with it. TTN (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the target suggested by User:BOZ, above. This article was WP:PROD'd in January 2008, deprodded within hours by an IP editor, redirected to the target above by BOZ, reverted within 5 minutes by another IP editor, and then redirected and reverted 4 more times by April 2008. It was redirected to the same merge target by the present AFD nominator in September 2009 and reverted 2 months later by another IP editor. I have some slight concerns with nomination by an editor who previously boldly redirected the article, but applyingWP:AGF this is just an extremely long WP:BRD cycle.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: Per nom, though if we have a list we may as well redirect it there and see if anything's worth moving. Forgotten Realms and Dungeons & Dragons may be notable, but the Red Knight specifically? If she is, the article's certainly not proving it. On a side note, we seem to have lots of D&D articles in a similar state. It might be worthing going on the WikiProject and sorting them out (whether by merging, fixing up, redirecting, etc.) – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a large core of vocal members of the Wikiproject who seem to be opposed to any mass clean up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Deletion is also acceptable, but it seems unnecessary. I can't find any reliable sources discussing this character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this kind of trivia. fails WP:GNG and so the results for this article are delete or merge if there is any appropriate content that would properly enhance some other article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 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) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 19 September 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.