Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasya

: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 Lords of the Nine Hells. T. Canens (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Glasya]]=

:{{la|Glasya}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Glasya}})

A combination of summary material from multiple D&D guidebooks does not show notability. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the character is in multiple sources and articles shows that it is a noteworthy character in itself. Examples of characters who exist in multiple articles that get their own pages is extensive, including Grima Wormtounge (LotR), the Tholians (Star Trek), and Jesus. You need more evidence of lack of noteworthiness. (talk) 10:04 6 February 2012 (PST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

:Keep - I think this is a worthwhile topic for an article. If consensus goes against that, a merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) would be better than deleting. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete The article is written with an in-universe perspective with almost no real-world perspective. The topic does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that show notability, the article relies on primary sources, it has no in-line references and it's mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
merge probably to Lords of the Nine Hells, which itself needs a lot of work but probably can be sourced to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Merge per Hobit. A non-notable element of a notable franchise should almost always be upmerged into a larger article. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

: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.