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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undermountain[edit]

Undermountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional game settting. No evidence of notability outside the Dungeons and Dragons game. No independent, reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Mattinbgn\^talk 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability -Zeus- (t|c) 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Ruins of Undermountain, unless better sourcing is found. Also, per WP:BEFORE, did the nominator attempt to search for sources before nominating? -Drilnoth (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is the core location of a computer game, at least two books, and a series of online articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Point me to them or add them to the article. Until then, the article does not even bother to assert real world notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merely being a location for fictional works is not enough. What evidence is there of discussion in the real world about the setting? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Finally, the article has been tagged since September 2006. How long are we supposed to wait for these supposed sources to be added? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Okay. Here's a listing of six books related to the location, the full series of web articles, the multiplayer video game, and the RPGA "mini-campaign". -Drilnoth (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See WP:There is no deadline. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But having the tag sit there for 2 1/2 years while editors obviously interested in the subject fail to fix it, it suddenly becomes my job to look for sources because I feel the article manifestly fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines? Waving essays around does not make the subject of this article any more notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The D&D project had actually slowed down for awhile... for the past year and a half or so, they weren't able to really spend time on this type of article (look through the archives at WT:DND for more info on that). The project just recently got going again, and we have been working on this sort of article. The D&D project also consissts of about 1700 articles, and has only had three or four active members at any given time, so I don't think that any of us noticed the long-standing tag on this one. We have been getting all of these less-notable articles merged together (WP:PRESERVEing information while not giving everything its own article), but just hadn't gotten to this one.
• And no, it doesn't become your job to look for sources because you feel that "the article manifestly fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines". Nominating it at AFD without looking for sources is the issue, per WP:BEFORE. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mattinbgn and -Zeus-. Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - major location in the Forgotten Realms setting. Please tell me this is not being nominated for deletion just because of a Grawp attack? Failing a keep, then merge into List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, it was nominated for deletion because there was no evidence of notability required. The vandalism merely brought the article to my attention. Merely stating "major location in the Forgotten Realms setting" does not add up to a rationale to keep. Find multiple independent and reliable sources (i.e. not official D&D sources, or blogs, or forums etc.) asserting notability and the article probably will be kept. The suppoters of keeping this article would do a lot better to make less inferences about my motives for nominating and more time finding and adding sources. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Comment: WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons has been putting quite a bit of work lately into merging together less notable articles, like this one. In fact, I'd be happy to merge it to the logical List of regions in Faerûn right away. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to meet notability requirements --VS ^talk 06:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did you search for sources before !voting? Per WP:INTROTODELETE: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." (emphasis mine) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The D&D project has about 1700 articles under its perview. We've been upgrading about five per month to GA, and merging about 30 per month to various articles. It may seem like deleting one is hepling us, but its really taking the time of about five merges. We've had several RfCs about this, and hopefully we don't go to arbcom. Whoever closes this, if you decide on a merge, notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and we'll take care of it for you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yah, I'd merge this right now if the AFD tag wasn't on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article was just hit by a Grawp (talk · contribs) attack the same day as the nomination, and then the reverter of the vandalism (Bidgee (talk · contribs)) asked Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) about it, leading to the AFD. Permalink. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I was mentioning it for future readers of the discussion, since it wasn't specifically mentioned above. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that. I am asking why it's relevant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because wouldn't nominating articles for deletion immediately after a Grawp attack provoke further action from him/her/them, since their disruption lead to further discussion and controversy? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay; just a thought. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable fictional location which doesn't appear to have received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. "Sources" provided in the discussion above do not establish notability and appear to simply be listings of official products where this location appears. Article is one blurb about the date of creation and then a bunch of in-universe details and plot tidbits. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought you'd gotten banned for socking. No? Shemeska (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the same thing about you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request: If this is to be deleted, could it instead by userfied to User:Drilnoth/Sandbox/Undermountain so that I can take some more time to work on improving it? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A Nobody (talk · contribs) has been putting some work into the article since the AFD started. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drilnoth noting it occurs across several media. Agree sources are needed though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Drilnoth. Edward321 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient material, Major fictional locations in major fictions are notable, and there is no consensus they need 3rd party references. The discussion of who created it is sufficient real world context. DGG (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG Shemeska (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - DGG's argument that major fictional locations do not need 3rd party references is as stands, and thanks to A Nobody's oft underappreciated efforts [1] has been expanded and sourced nicely. McJeff (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, A Nobody, McJeff, Casliber. Ikip (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to Ed:Drilnoths good faith request to continue improvement and Ed:A Nobody's efforts. Ed:Peregrine FIscher seems to be willing to facilitate a merge with existing articles which also works...--Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - used in many products over several years by dozens of different authors. Web Warlock (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, maybe even per WP:SNOW at this point, as it concerns the titular location in multiple works and is at worst redirectable, but at best serves as a navigational means to other articles. It meets our verifiability guidelines by being covered in multiple reliable published sources and is notable by any reasonable standard as a titular location in part of a mainstream and popular franchise familiar to millions around the world. And in event, we don't delete based on WP:JNN or WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of regions in Faerûn--LexCorp (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2009 (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.