Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obad-Hai (2nd nomination)

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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obad-Hai[edit]

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

This article contains only primary sources, and there are no apparent non-trivial, non-primary sources that could be added to establish real world notability when using the find sources links above. Keep arguments in the last AfD basically boiled down to WP:INHERITED. TTN (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again per the rationale of Jclemens in the last AFD; while this deity was just another god of the Greyhawk setting for almost 20 years, he took on a much more prominent role after inclusion as one of the primary deities for the D&D game in the third edition Player's Handbook, and remained that way for several years. That said, a merge into ~~List of Dungeons & Dragons deities~~ List of Greyhawk deities is better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, that argument is simply nothing more than "it's part of an old series and shares in its notability." If that age actually mattered, there would be non-primary sources showing real world notability. From the links above, the best available is a mention of "this is an example of a nature-related god in D&D", which is trivial at absolute best. TTN (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both your own and the comment you cited amount to little more than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's not a valid reason to keep, and if you believe that independent, reliable coverage exists for Obad-Hai, you need to prove it. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no reliable sources from what I can tell. WP:NOTINHERITED, Obad-Hai needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as still not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This fictional deity was briefly discussed in the academic paper “Masters of the Wild”: Animals and the Environment in Dungeons & Dragons, which is an independent secondary RS. It has an entry in a table in Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies, a book by an independent publisher. These are not enough to meet the threshold of notability. But they are enough, along with many primary sources by different authors, to merit a selective merge of verifiable material into List of Greyhawk deities, where it already has an entry and could use the referencing, or as BOZ suggests, List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Per the Wikipedia policies alternatives to deletion and WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable material is preferred over deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk deities makes more sense, so I have amended my response. :) BOZ (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems like the best option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities per the above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm really surprised that there aren't more sources, but that's not an argument to keep. No objection to recreation if/when sources emerge. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2016 (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.