Deletion of Luthic

Comment: to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or '''delete'''.  Either is acceptable.  I agree with Simone.  There has been no credible, policy-based argument for keeping this article.  It boils down to  or zealous inclusionism.  The article does not satisfy the , and it does not matter whether TTN uses a boilerplate or not.  There are no independent, secondary sources, and the article is even helpfully tagged with PRIMARY.  I don't see how any any of DGG's arguments are true.  Dragon, TSR, and Wizards of the Coast are all trademarks of the publisher.  How are there any secondary sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: as always with these articles, not a single |independent secondary source so we can't |verify notability. Not a single argument for keeping the article is policy based. I will change my vote to keep immediately if an editor can find a reliable independent secondary source which discusses the topic of "Luthic" in depth. Fanboys just wanna keep their cruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NRVE)

Comment: to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or '''delete''', per users NinjaRobotPirate and Vulcan's Forge. The ''keep'' comments blatantly ignore the nomination rationale, and fundamentally misunderstand  and the different |levels of sourcing. The article is devoid of a single secondary source, let alone independent sources, it thus fails to demonstrate notability of the topic per  and is better merged
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PSTS||WP:GNG)