Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aasimar

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. Clear consensus to get rid of the article. It's not so clear whether a merge or a deletion would be the best way to accomplish that - while WP:GNG is not a requirement for a merger, the lack of secondary sources and the questions about the reliability of the primary ones weigh heavily in favour of deletion as all content on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliably sources/verifiable. So on balance, this is a delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aasimar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG TTN (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor fictional race, no non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources, fails the WP:GNG, etc. WP:PRESERVE is not some sort of catch-all argument that means that content cannot be deleted. It describes steps to take to actually fix the issues that may result in an article or content being deleted. In cases like this, where the subject matter fails the WP:GNG and reliable, secondary sources are non-existent, those issues are not going to be fixed by merging the problematic content into another article, and so WP:PRESERVE is not a valid argument for doing so. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one actually sources more than the monster manual, but it sill fails WP:GNG as it is only game guides and related player material. No treatment in any WP:RS and Wikipedia is not a game guide. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Per Rorshacma, WP:PRESERVE does not apply. Improvement is impossible because this is just not notable. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Not notable enough to keep, but I feel like this would be better than just straight up deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameron46 (talk • contribs)
Delete We've previously established that Wizards of the Coast is not RS due to a tendency to fictionalize and exaggerate information about itself, even information of the most back variety. The entire article is pretty much sourced to Wizards of the Coast publications, ergo, we have no RS that prove that "aasimar are a fictional race of humanoid creatures." Therefore, due to a total absence of RS, delete is the only viable outcome. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that this should be deleted, but the argument that WotC can't be relied upon to confirm fictional details of their own fictional properties seems to miss the point a bit. Whether or not to retain the content doesn't hinge on "proving" by secondary sources that aasimar are a fictional race of celestial humanoids in D&D. That's a simple statement of fact; it's no more in question than the fact that Ned Stark was the lord of Winterfell in the fictional world of Game of Thrones. The question of whether or not to keep hinges on the fact that no one cares enough about the aasimar in D&D to produce reliable, independent, secondary commentary about them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reliably sourced content to be merged. Not a very active user (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article subject has no coverage in reliable secondary sources, and therefore fails GNG. There is no information worth merging, and if it is redirected it should be deleted first to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2020 (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.