Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sundering

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 keep. No consensus to delete, and after a WP:HEY by Sariel Xilo, a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sundering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to write an encyclopedic article here, as best practiced in the general notability guideline. There are some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this in the context of the actual notable fiction itself, but even within the fiction, it's an obscure background detail that has never been written about to be more than just a WP:PLOT detail, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forgotten Realms#Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, where it is already covered. The only non-primary sources being used here are both just covering the same announcement of the in-universe event, and in both cases, the coverage is limited to "this is the name of an upcoming D&D event". Searching for additional sources brings up just some brief mentions of it being the name of the event, with no in-depth coverage demonstrating notability. It might also be useful if the Redirect were renamed, with the current disambiguation page for the term moved to this space instead. Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a variety of different types of coverage that seems to easily pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest talkedits 01:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also not convinced that they demonstrate sustained coverage - there were basically two time periods where several, similar articles were released - Aug-Sep 2012, when the event was announced, and then around August 2013, when the event began. The only sources above that don't fall into those two "announcement" periods is a short article a couple months later that is, itself, just another announcement about product releases, and then two creator interviews. In addition, outside of the creator interviews, the contents of all of these articles are simply reports of Wizards of the Coast's announcements. Rorshacma (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started to revamp the article away from an in-universe style and towards details of the actual event (books/adventures) but I don't have time to continue this right now. If an editor could continue fleshing out the Reception section and incorporating the sources listed by Torchiest above, that would be great. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources found suggest that the topic is, surprisingly, notable per NFICTION/GNG. Hopefully, someone can indeed rewrite it so it is less in-universe plot fancruft and more the analysis of significance to the real world franchise etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:11, 2 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.