Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterdeep

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 Faerûn. The overall consensus is that this topic is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article and can be covered on the Faerûn article. The page history will still be accessible so any useful content may be merged as appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waterdeep[edit]

[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)

Mostly unsourced or primary sourced information, failing WP:GNG. Nearly zero meaningful WP:NOT#PLOT information. Lacks the secondary sources to establish the notability for this topic to create a standalone article. This is Wikia material that lacks the secondary notability for a standalone article that doesn't duplicate the subject matter at Waterdeep: Dragon Heist and Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage and others. Jontesta (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faerûn as failing WP:GNG. Fancrufty with no critical reception or secondary notability to speak of._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:GNG. There are trivial mentions of this but nothing to establish its real world importance or provide WP:SIGCOV. I wouldn't object to a redirect per Zxcvbnm. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faerûn - The bulk of this article is just plot summaries that are largely unsourced. The development section is comprised of information either using primary sources, or discussing the development of the Forgotten Realms setting as a whole rather than Waterdeep in specific, which is already covered on the main article for the setting. And the "Official Products" section is basically just a WP:DIRECTORY of products the city appeared in. Searching for sources turns up plenty of mentions of the city in discussions on specific books or products in which it appeared, which all have their own articles, but I'm not finding enough in the way of overall analysis or discussion of the city itself that would warrant this being split from the main article on the setting. A redirect would be appropriate, though, and would preserve the history in case anyone wanted to use anything here to beef up the information on Waterdeep in the main article. Though, again, as most of the plot information here is currently unsourced, I would be careful of what is actually used. Rorshacma (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. I'll add that a few sentences may be merge-eable, I'd recommend soft deletion to preserve history for people who want to rescue a tidbit here or there. But there is no evidence this topic has stand-alone notability per WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Forgotten Realms per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: In a first search I did not see large-scale discussion, but a number of shorter bits about Waterdeep in secondary sources, both present in and as yet absent from the article. I would like to search more, but that takes time, especially given the number of deletion discussions going on at the moment. Taking these sources together, especially when considering that Undermountain redirects here, and therefore any discussion of Untermountain in secondary sources directly pertains to the notability of this article, I think the article can be kept. If all that together is not seen as enough, the present information should still be preserved, both by merging (I guess to Faerûn), and by keeping the history available for future use and improvement. Daranios (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faerûn. Not enough in-depth sourcing from reliable sources to show the notability of the setting itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 1 December 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.