Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ityak-Ortheel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 except signature updates.
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ityak-Ortheel
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No real in-game significance, no evidence of third party sources. Article seems reasonably substantial, so feel free to shoot me down on this one, if it is notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable. Nothing but wizards links there. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, or Merge and/or Redirect into Faerun. Probably should have properly been bundled with Kezef the Chaos Hound AFD. BOZ (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. An article like this with a heavy in-universe perspective treats the fictional narrative as it it were the real thing, but completely ignornes the requirements of WP:WAF for real-world context and sourced analysis. There is no content worth merging or keeping; perhaps BOZ should consider copying this material to a suitable fansite.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- delete per Gavin Collins and Percy Snoodle. It's not apparently possible to expand this beyond a simple in-universe summary - and according to WP:RPG/N, (sources) should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information. I especially dislike the Fiend Folio-style silly name. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:17, 8 March 2008 (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.
