Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Nomads

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 Flanaess. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Nomads[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style". There's nothing to merge as the article does not include 3rd party citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not so. Primary sources can verify, but not demonstrate notability of a topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flanaess. This is just a more specific page on a more broad topic that is notable, so I don't see why I should favor deletion over merging. Also, deletion is not a cleanup. Borderlandor (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. insufficient for separate article. perhaps a redirect to Flanaess. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a strong consensus that this article needs to go. A bit more clarity on exactly how would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:01, 2 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.