Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Year (Greyhawk)

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 Flanaess#Calendar. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common Year (Greyhawk)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reidrect to Greyhawk. There's no real question that this concept doesn't even come close to being notable enough to keep as an article. There are only a handful of sources, and the only one included that is an independent source is actually not about the subject at all, and doesn't even mention it, making it somewhat of a false flag. The vast majority of the content in the article is completely unsourced, and I'm not finding any information that supports any of it, as all I'm finding is mirrors of this article. So, there is essentially nothing to bother merging. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flanaess#Calendar, which is where I suggested the calendar be merged. If we keep all this stuff in one place, it will be easier to locate the information. Still, if people want to merge/redirect this somewhere else, that's alright, too. The article stays admirably out-of-universe, but there's really no coverage of this minor topic. All I see on Google are fan sites and Wikipedia mirrors. If there's offline coverage, it would probably be best added to a relevant article until it requires a split. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 31 December 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.