- 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 redirect to Flanaess. Up to editors whether to merge anything. Sandstein 09:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slave Lords (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)
This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge, nothing that really stands out to justify a standalone article. Longevitydude (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect or very selectively Merge to Flanaess. Its a minor fictional organization that has no sources outside of the official D&D products. As the information presented in the article consists entirely of in-universe plot summary, and there are no inline citations included to know which parts are being even being sourced, I'd personally favor a Redirect, as there really isn't much here to merge. But, I would not be completely opposed if someone chose to do the work to merge. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Flanaess given above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2017 (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.