Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharn (Forgotten Realms)

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 Kept. No strong editorial consensus about how to present this information, but "keep" and "merge" both argue keeping content. One might argue this should be closed "no consensus", but the outcome is unaffected either way. Wily D 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharn (Forgotten Realms)

Tagged for notability, third-party sources, in-universe and context for a year. Really doesn't seem to be a notable character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Am I allowed to cast that as a vote? If not Speedy Delete. Subjects within video games don't generally warrant their own entry unless they have independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussed article is not about a video game character; it is about a monster in a pen-and-paper role-playing game and which is also the central focus in one of the game's novels. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per ChildofMidnight. Stick it in List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters or something. RayAYang (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a species of creature, not a "character", video game or otherwise. And further, this species has been around through every edition of the game. And has been in several novels, modules, and other publications. - jc37 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per JC37. Also, I have been doing quite a bit of merging of monster-related D&D articles recently and could merge this into another article if it was kept, or at least if its edit history was retained. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drilnoth; failing that, give him a chance to merge the content properly as he has been doing with other articles. BOZ (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—I see three keep comments, but none of them address the nominator's notability concern by providing secondary sources. Pagra shtak 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I said keep I basically meant "keep for now"... I think that merge is the proper course of action for this article, but a concentrated effort will be nescessary to create an article to merge it into, so it could be kept for the time being and then merged as soon as a suitable article is created. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is comprised of synthesis of plot summary which places an over-reliance on an in universe perspective, and in doing so fails to provide content, analysis or criticism about the real-world development of these fictional characters. There is no evidence of notability, either for the characters themselves, nor the publications from which this synthesis has been composed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (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.