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 Dragonlance Chronicles. The keep votes are not presenting a very strong argument because consensus can change, and this discussion was better attended than the last one. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

War of the Lance

War of the Lance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article is mostly unsourced. Granted, we try to assess potential, but the only sources that can be found are non-independent sources like the fiction itself, or the publisher and their licensees. Needs significant coverage in reliable third party sources in order to meet the general notability guideline and write a verifiable article that's not just WP:PLOT. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Dragonlance Chronicles. As I stated in the previous AFD, this is just a summary of the complete plot of the that trilogy of books, combined into one massive article. Each of the books in the trilogy already have their own articles, each with their own extensive plot summaries, that contain all of the plot information that is here, making this WP:REDUNDANT. Its a plausible search term, though, and redirecting to the main article for the trilogy, which serves as a hub to the individual articles on the three books, would be the best way to direct people to the relevant information. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment- Editors might also want to take a look at a similar AFD that closed recently, regarding the Galactic Civil War. It was a very similar case, where it was an article that just summarized the overall plot of the original Star Wars trilogy, and was deemed a WP:CONTENTFORK of that. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Keep: This was up for AfD seven months ago, and closed as Keep. A merge was suggested that didn't happen. I understand Rorshacma's point about this being a plot summary that's redundant with the book articles, but I thought it was generally understood that you shouldn't follow a Keep close with another nomination for deletion six months later. Shooterwalker didn't start a talk page conversation, nominate for a merge, or make any edits to any of the relevant pages; they just went straight for a deletion nomination. I don't understand the logic of that. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 02:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete obviously insufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG Chetsford ( talk) 05:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to the book series, where this should be discussed as it is the main plot summary for them. Independently this topic has no notability per NFICTION/GNG. == _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Dragonlance Chronicles, I might have some reservations if the previous AfD gave any good points at all, but it does not. Also, six months is the generally accepted waiting period after an AfD, seven months is a perfectly fine time to wait. Article clearly fails GNG and WP:PLOT, since it is sourced entirely to primary sources and is described from an entirely in-universe point of view. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Procedural Keep I am not strongly opposed to a merge in the view of the contentfork argument, but completely agree with Toughpigs that this AfD following the last one is not a good way to go about it. Why not do the merge discussion or starting the work of a merge, but rather ignore the sentence pronounced in the last AfD and strive for elemination of content? (By the way, in it's current state it is almost, but not completely source to primary sources.) Daranios ( talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge to Dragonlance Chronicles per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 12:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge or redirect per the consensus above and from the previous AFD. Also a procedural comment that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we shouldn't throw up procedural hurdles when editors are discussing a consensual compromise. This article is almost completely sourced to primary sources and we see a solution that is compatible with WP:ATD. Jontesta ( talk) 20:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Dragonlance Chronicles per above. I see the arguments about process. But this article is redundant with the plot summary of the trilogy, and has no notability of its own. Archrogue ( talk) 18:42, 12 July 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.