Azalin Rex

Azalin Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This appears to be a nonnotable game character with no independent coverage. It has been tagged for notability for about six months, so this nomination should not come as a surprise. Graevemoore (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Horribly written abot a non-notable charachter. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable character in its own right, delete and possibly redirect to Ravenloft. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has no received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Google turned up nothing useful in the first few pages of hits, which indicates such sources do not exist. Additionally, there is no encyclopedic content to merge anywhere since the entire article is plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too much plot and too little encyclopedic content and actual sources. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per plenty of references and consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on D&D for which there are many published volumes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has been tagged for lack of citations, the in-universe style of writing, and now for lack of notability. Also, nobody seems to be working on it anymore, and I'd hate to bloat the Ravenloft article with all this questionable material on one character. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put - Delete Eusebeus (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to Ravenloft. Significant Ravenloft character; although reliable sources may be difficult to find, lack of citations and in-universe style are cleanup issues and not reasons for deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no independent references so it fails WP:N and should be deleted Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has quite a bit of references and I suspect a good search through published sources could turn up more. No real reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Le Grand & BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]