Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cataclysm (Dragonlance) (2nd nomination)

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 Dragonlance#Fictional history. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cataclysm (Dragonlance)

[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)

Article is sourced entirely to the authors and their licensees. No third party coverage. Nothing that could provide neutral, unaffiliated, real-world context. Cannot be re-written to comply with WP:NOTPLOT or WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional_history - Completely in-universe plot information, using only primary sources. Searching for additional sources brings up a few mentions here and there in sources talking about the Dragonlance setting's history, but nothing even close to being in-depth enough to support any kind of article. It could potentially also be used as a Redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history, where it is already mentioned, but there is no sourced content here worth merging anywhere. I am fine with either option, based on the rest of the consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor plot point in a game's lore, that lacks any kind of notability. I am not a fan of exceedingly generic terms using disambiguations to distinguish themselves, clogging disambiguation pages with more cruft to filter through._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not likely to be a searchable term, concept fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and judiciously trim to Dragonlance. The content of the article under consideration here is part of the 'canon' of Dragonlance so it should be present there, albeit in a reduced scope. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragonlance#Fictional history as per above per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history, fails WP:GNG, as it is sourced to only primary sources, and WP:PLOT as it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective. Quite frankly, there is nothing here worth merging as the main article already describes this event with due importance, merging anything would just make it worse. Just because something is "canon" does not mean we have to talk about it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:29, 30 May 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.