Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sildëyuir
- 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 Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Forgotten Realms. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sildëyuir (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 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 plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep or merge into Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- transwiki to some fansite that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, the content is only primary non independent sources and so it fails WP:GNG leaving the options of : merge, redirect or delete. Given the state of the suggested merge target - already bloated with in universe primary sourced trivia, a merge would seem to be merely an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another and not very valuable to the project. If there can be shown evidence that this is a likely search term (given the úmláúts, it seems únlikély), a redirect might be appropriate, but given the history of redirects being indiscriminately restored for these types of articles without additional third party sourcing, the redirect would need to be locked. delete is also acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V. Article is not based on independent sourcing. It's permissible to use primary and licensed sources for articles, but it is not permitted to base articles upon them.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect into Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Forgotten Realms. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M states Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. Difficulty in maintaining a redirect is an editor problem and not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hold - I ask that this page be held off from being merged by the closer so that I may do the necessary tasks rather than having to work twice of three times as hard to fix a mergeless redirect that would otherwise be performed. A widescale and large clean up operation is underway as noted by this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Mark viking and BOZ. As explained, this is unsuitable for a standalone article, however as a line in the target article would be logical, and redirects are cheap. Redirects can also easily be salted, "the redirect would need protection" isn't a reason to delete instead of redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.