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 as no one is suggesting deleting but also not avidly and largely suggesting Keeping itself either (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flandal Steelskin (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)

This character article currently only has primary sources, so it does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There appeared to be a great number of similarly primary sources-only article under all three categories this article belonged to. Personally I would not expect a great amount of non-primary sources for this type of fictional character. JWNoctis^talk 12:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close. As usual, no legitimate argument advanced for deletion by a nominator who does not comply with WP:BEFORE and uses AFD nominations to advance his viewpoint in a long-running dispute over the form subjects should be covered, which is not a legitimate, good faith use of the deletion process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge, no reliable sources from what I can tell. WP:NOTINHERITED, Flandal Steelskin needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the same could be applied to just about every single article under Dungeons & Dragons deities. I understand your line of reasoning, but given the number and scale of article involved: Are there any sort of precedence for this? Also as far as fictional entity in a tabletop RPG went, nothing is supposed to be more reliable than the official sourcebook or equivalent themselves. However, that does not establish notability as you noted. JWNoctis^talk 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close as Merge/Redirect to Gnome deities; this article was originally merged and redirected there by User:Drilnoth in 2008 and was subsequently reverted 3 years later by an IP-only editor. Gnome deities is a better merge target, and List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities links to it.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Gnome deities. This fictional character has no independent notability from the D&Dverse. AadaamS (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gnome deities, per Vulcan's Forge. This is the better target. --Mark viking (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gnome deities. Primary sources aren't good enough to establish notability, and I don't see anything usable in a Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems appropriate, as above, unless some third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 5 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.