Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blingdenstone

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 List of Forgotten Realms cities. So Why 07:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blingdenstone[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A BEFORE search list one passing mention, and the rest were Wikia and primary sources. Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless some good third-party sources can be identified. As we have the list, that seems to be the appropriate place for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect name only to List of Forgotten Realms cities. Not notable for a stand-alone article. The content is unsourced original research and all in-universe. The only citation offered is to in-universe Silver Marches (accessory), hence, there's nothing to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2017 (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.