Deletion of Lathander

Comment: This article fails the .  Asserting that notability is "disputed" in order to avoid the deletion of this article on the grounds of failing  is borderline disruptive.  As long as the tag on top of  says "guideline" it isn't disputed enough.  IF editors want to argue that ''this'' article should be that 'common sense' exception to , I'm all ears
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: Something many arguing here fail to realize is that a "novel" or "game guide" is not a reliable, third-party |source. Any interpretation of such works is |original research and should not be included in a Wikipedia article.  What the article should be based on is ''third-party'' examination of primary sources such as game guides.  If a D&D periodical had written an article "The Importance of Lathander" or something, then that would qualify as a source. As it is, this article contains no such outside confirmation of notability, and those in favor of keeping it have made no assertions that such sources exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: A cleanup template was added to this article in Janauary 2008 indicating that it has no |reliable secondary sources, and none have been added since then. The only sources added to date are trivial and originate from primary sources or publications controlled by Wizards of the Coast, the owners of Dungeons & Dragons. The article itself if riddle with |original research and easel|weasel words such as "Lathander favours those who dispel the undead and aid others. He blesses those who plant new life." Overall, this article fails , #PLOT and has in universe problems which make it fail AF
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:W||WP:FICT||WP:NOT||WP:WAF)