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 with no prejudice to creating a disambiguation page. ansh666 03:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller on the threshold (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)

A figure in esotericism. The article is full of apparent WP:OR (tagged since 2009) and lacks any substantial references, making most content unverifiable. A Google Books search yields only apparently unreliable esoteric literature, i.e., primary rather than secondary sources. For the same reasons, the topic's notability per WP:GNG is dubious. We'd need a reliable secondary source that, as a minimum, defines the topic in order to even consider keeping this as a stub with all the OR cut out. Sandstein 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Guardian of the Threshold which is the most common term. —PaleoNeonate – 23:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That other article also has problems, however... —PaleoNeonate – 23:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to disambiguation - there are three hatnote-linked pages, and a WP:DICTDEF, which is sufficient to keep a disambiguation page here. Most of the rest of the content should be removed as unsourced and non-encyclopedic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - no evidence that this topic is notable. Possibly with more research? Looks like the content is based on books that I have no access to. Can you make a stronger case for notoriety?Sgerbic (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I do have one or two of the stories, and I have to say that as a literary concept it is not really that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to disambig, the article itself is obviously redundant with Guardian of the Threshold but the song/album/band should be linked from this term. The content should in principle be merged to the Guardian article but in reality all of it needs to be merged into a trash can. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or blank/redirect to Guardian of the Threshold per WP:POVFORK and WP:Duplicate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable. After deletion, possibly use the page to disambig: Dweller on the Threshold (song), Dweller on the Threshold (album), and Dweller at the Threshold. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2018 (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.