Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siamorphe

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) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siamorphe

(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 plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. The topic is verifiable in authoritative sources and Siamorphe is a reasonable search term. --Mark viking (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as redirect/merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. This article was initially merged to the above target by the nominator in September 2009; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor just over a year later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject - although I will admit that this may be contentious, since there was a back-and-forth series of reverts over this in August 2012. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that loves this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, this topic, as per usual with the D&D fictional cruft, fails WP:GNG with only primary, non-independent sources. Thus the options are merge, redirect or delete. The proposed merge target is currently also bloated with fancruft sourced only to primary non-independent sources and so a merge would merely be shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. As for redirect, as Vulcan39 points out, we have been down that path before (with editors other than IPs restoring the content that fails WP:GNG) and so if the decision is something other than delete, the result needs to be locked down. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 26 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.