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 redirect to Three-lobed Burning eye (magazine). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Lobed Burning Eye

[edit]

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

A fictional element appearing in only a single short story, without the notability required for its own article. The creature described is merely a form of Nyarlathotep, who is extensively covered in his own article, and appeared only in the short story The Haunter of the Dark, whose plot is also covered in a seperate article. I would merely redirect this page to one of those, but I actually believe that this article is a misnomer and thus not a valid search term. Its been a number of years since I read this story, but if I recall correctly, the actual creature it is describing is called the titual Haunter of the Dark, and "three-lobed burning eye" is simply a discription of one of its prominent features, not a name for the creature itself. Thus I brought it to AFD instead, as I believe deletion to be the more logical choice. Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to either The Haunter of the Dark or to Three-lobed Burning eye (magazine). This article is poorly sourced, entirely redundant to the article about the short story, and is more about the character Robert Blake than the titular monster. But I think the existence of the magazine called "Three-lobed Burning eye" proves that the title is a legit search term. Reyk _YO! 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect to the magazine's article is a plausible solution, and one that I had not thought of. I think that would make a lot of sense. Rorshacma (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect or Delete. Does not seem to have independent notability. Eshlare (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate per Reyk; excellent research to find that history of the term.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not have independent notability as per the sourcing requirements at the WP:GNG. No qualms about re-creating it as a redirect or disambiguation if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (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.

Note: I've gone ahead and redirected and histmerged ALL of everything to Three-Lobed Burning Eye, because it's silly to have a "... (magazine)" article without an undisambiguated version. I manually cleaned up the redirects, and histmerged the fictional element, so anyone can merge it from the history of the article, which is now about the magazine, if they want to provide a bit more commentary on the underpinning of the name. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]