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. The main arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSNOTABLE without backup, and that this was a list with a lot of blue links. However, most of the bluelinks are redirects to other lists, some of them up for deletion themselves. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forgotten Realms deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Mostly "referenced" by primary sources. No independent significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While there is currently the start of an effort to restructure D&D articles, this really has no place on Wikipedia currently. These are simply plot elements without any non-primary context and can constitute game guide information under a certain light. They really provide no greater context to the topic. They simply exist here as part of this 2006 Wikipedia holdover. If notability for the grouping can be established, it severely should be culled similarly to the monster lists. If there are notable articles under this structure, I'd say they definitely number less than five, so a list even for those would be unneeded. TTN (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also be fine with a very selective merge to the below-mentioned section, but only in the form of one to three paragraphs of summary style material depending on weight or a very key selection of the most important 5-10 characters to best illustrate the topic. TTN (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or selectively merge to Forgotten Realms#Religion. BOZ (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to Forgotten Realms#Religion - I've heard it be argued that the subject of the overall concept of religions in D&D settings has potential for sourced content, and as the Forgotten Realms article itself is notable and in no danger of being deleted, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and have some of the content here be merged to flesh out the corresponding section. But, as BOZ said, this should be a very selective merging just discussing the overall concept and the most important deities that are unique to this world, as the majority of the content here is just primary sourced plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• TTN, Rorshacma, do you know what this is all about? Drmies (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No clue. Anonymous editors on obscure D&D articles is pretty common, especially reviving them. They'll often undo a redirect, update something, and then re-redirect it. I've always assumed it's an active user from the space logging out for whatever reason. TTN (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, no idea. Given the dates, I can only assume those edits were prompted by this discussion, but to what purpose, I haven't a clue. As TTN said, anonymous IP editors undoing Redirects for minor D&D articles that had been previously decided in a discussion is fairly common (I run into it all the time when looking at the multitude of non-notable monster articles), but the purpose of this particular set of edits leaves me a bit mystified. Rorshacma (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as it has that many blue links then its a valid list article. Dream Focus 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid list from a significant fantasy world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A suitable list article for Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and TTN. Typical WP:ITSNOTABLE comments with absolutely no supporting evidence that it is a notable list. It's just pure WP:GAMECRUFT and the majority of the links are either to other lists or fancruft articles. I honestly do not see any content that can be merged here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List of trivia is not encyclopedic. We have outsourced this stuff to wikias and such. This is already much better covered in https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Deity . Having such lists on Wikipedia is a disservice to the leader. I don't see arguments here that explain how such a list passes WP:LISTN (but I am open to consider them, ping me if you want me to review any new arguments). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As far as I can tell from the references, no secondary sources exist (I might be wrong, if I am @ me and I'll take a look). I have no idea how this passes WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of real-world notability, just as list of in-universe errata. ValarianB (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of this list is to centrally locate and collate the list of Forgotten Realms fictional deities, many of which have either gone through, or are going through, the deletion process already. All of these are legitimately things interested parties might search for, and most if not all of them are things which are not in themselves notable enough to have their own article. Keeping this article provides a legitimate merge and redirect target for all of them, provides an explain of what the subject matter is, and a limited explanation of each entry. Removing the article orphans multiple redirects which currently exist for valid search terms.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems to have an initial assumption that any of them are necessary to cover in the first place. There seem to be maybe two or three that are actually notable. TTN (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2019 (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.