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 no consensus. A decision on whether or not to merge can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Free City of Greyhawk

Free City of Greyhawk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fictional location in Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No secondary sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as there are a few independent sources, and I will see if I can find more, otherwise merge to Greyhawk. BOZ ( talk) 21:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I checked "Designers & Dragons" by Shannon Appelcline and that book mostly discusses Gary Gygax's unrealized plans to fully detail the city in publications. He does note that Jon Peterson's book "Playing at the World" (2012) discusses the city of Greyhawk, but does not say to what degree; unfortunately, I do not have that book yet (Christmas is coming though, so we will see). BOZ ( talk) 19:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • If there's coverage in both books, I'd be happy to support keeping the article. If this is deleted, perhaps it could be later recreated with a bit less plot summary and a bit more analysis from secondary sources. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Should I add the parts from "Designers" about how Gygax wanted to detail the city, or would that not be useful? The book doesn't seem to say anything else about it other than several mentions of unpublished planned sourcebooks about the city and other parts of the setting, but I can check again in a few days when I have the chance. BOZ ( talk)
        • It's not a lot, but it's something! At the very least, it's the sort of thing that may be worth including in a broader article. Josh Milburn ( talk) 15:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
          • You got it! It will have to be next week, but I will try to check that out Monday morning. BOZ ( talk) 15:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
            • Great; I can't really withdraw this nomination now that others are supporting deletion, but if it's deleted in the mean time, we could restore it to userspace. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
              • OK, I actually was able to add more than I promised. :) BOZ ( talk) 18:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Soft delete by merge and redirect per BOM. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The most recent addition of material from Applecline's book gives good secondary-source background about the publication history. Agree with Josh Milburn ( talk) that deleting all of the plot summary in Section 3 ("Summary of published information about the city") would strengthen the article. Guinness323 ( talk) 19:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I agree - very valuable. I do now think the article should be kept (but, as above, can't really "withdraw" this nomination now). BOZ, could I recommend you lose the non-free image and trim back some of the plot information? If you were to do that, I think you would be justified in removing the maintenance templates. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Will see what I can do - it's been a busy day and I may have already used my quota of free time that the universe allows me. ;) Meanwhile, I forgot to point out earlier that the book has far greater detail about Castle Greyhawk as a topic than it does about the city. I can put that on my ever-expanding to-do list. BOZ ( talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - I don't feel the current incarnation of the article is strong enough to be independent. Strip it of all unneeded info, and it'd be quite small. The topic should be explored more in the main article to see if this information can bolster it, and then be split out later if it proves to have too much weight. TTN ( talk) 12:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Selective Merge to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting, where this world first appeared and which lends a better real-world frame for this topic. Fictional locations are rarely ever notable and tend to make for PLOT-y articles with trivial appearance info, as this one is a prime example. Almost all refs just retell the plot or fictional facts that have no relevance for the real-world ( WP:NOT#PLOT).– sgeureka ^{t• c} 08:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per additional sourcing and comments of Boz above. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 20:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. Even with the work done by BOZ, only a scant few bits of the "Development" and "Publication History" sections are actually worth preserving, as being referenced by secondary sources. The vast majority of the article is completely unsourced plot detail, and even the two sections I mentioned are largely composed of simple lists of appearances that are similarly unsourced or sourced only to primary sources. When you take all of of that out of consideration, there is very little left, and not enough to sustain an independent article. The sourced information on the "real world" info should be retained somewhere, though, and I think Sgeureka's suggestion would make a better location for the merger than the main Greyhawk article. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:45, 26 December 2019 (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.