Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plains of the Paynims

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. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plains of the Paynims

Non-notable fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The D&D WikiProject is currently working on merging less-notable articles, like this one, together. Also, did the nominator try searching for sources per WP:BEFORE prior to nomination? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Flanaess until we come up with a better merge target. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other entries of Category:Greyhawk locations to form Universe of Greyhawk or List of Greyhawk locations per my earlier suggestion. Pagra shtak 19:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Flanaess, per BOZ. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT are not valid reasons for deletion. Topic can be verified in a published book. Merge discussions can take place elsewhere, but clearly no valid reason for redlinking and deleting edit history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly agree that deleting is unnecessary, and would be fine with a Keep; however, this one was among those likely to be merged in the near future anyway, so we really could have just done that without the need for an AFD... BOZ (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. By itself this doesn't seem to meet RS or Notability guidelines. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per A Nobody and Boz. I agree with Boz that this AfD was unnecessary, per WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Ikip (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (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.