Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almor

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 delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almor

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

This does not establish notability independent of Greyhawk 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) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about an intermediate merge target, like Flanaess? bd2412 T 20:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
transwiki to a gamer site that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, subject fails WP:GNG with only primary, non independent sourcing and so the options are delete, redirect or merge. I fail to see any content worth merging to the already bloated proposed target of the merge that would add value there. If there is an argument that it might be a potential search term, then redirect might be an option, but based on the prior history of these types of articles, the redirect should should be locked to prevent indiscriminate recreation. without clear evidence of the search term validity, delete is a good option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is impossible to verify notability due to the lack of independent sources, as Kww pointed out. Also, this is plot-only coverage, which is inappropriate. Simone 17:32, 1 October 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.