Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akadi

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. Nerge abd redurect are very similar, but merge does the paperwork for copyright purposes if anyone desires to merge stuff in Courcelles 00:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akadi

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

Fails notability - no significant coverage in secondary sources. Claritas § 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to list article otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities; I don't think this is notable in and of itself, but is a potential (if unlikely) search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is sourced only to primary sources, ie the roleplaying games in which the subject -a fictional character- appears. Since WP:GNG states that, for notability purposes, sources must be "secondary" and "independent of the subject or its creator", Jclemens's above comment is obviously bad faith and should be discarded by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's absolutely nothing bad-faith about pointing out the previous sockpuppetry that the nominator has engaged in in previous similar fictional elements discussions. Were I lying about it, it would indeed be bad faith. I'm not. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the sources, shall we? Since there is no coverage outside of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEes and nothing that indicates any "broad coverage".
- 1. TSR - primary source
- 2. WotC - primary source
- 3. Dragon magazine - primary source (published by TSR, later WotC)
- 4. TSR - primary source
- 5. ditto
- 6. ditto
- 7. ditto
- 8. ditto
- 9. ditto
- 10. WotC - primary source
- 11. ditto
- 12. TSR - primary source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities; I didn't find anything for this entry that would be of use or enough to meet the guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities (I can't see any relevant content that might be merged in a list and that isn't already there): non-notable article that fails WP:GNG, not a single independent source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:02, 25 December 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, Courcelles 04:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Zero evidence of any notability at all outside of the source material. TSR and WotC published material never establish notability in any form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. The article subject fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Hekerui (talk) 10:51, 30 December 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.