Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag
I am going to AGF, but I have the personal belief that the users voting Delete did not even look at the sources. Obviously, from just a visual, article-based standpoint, it is a completely different article that has little of the information from the previous version, Kharsag Epics. I have been watching Paul work on this article and he has been doing an admirable job at keeping his  out of the picture and also addressing the points raised in the other AfD. If you would look at the sources, which I just went through, I only saw two links that were the same as the previous version. And those links are being used to reference the small amount of material that is similar to the previous version, so I see no problems there. I am not seeing any  or  at all in this article. All Paul has done is put in the quoted sections from the cylinders that are about Kharsag. That is far from performing original research on them. No, this article is completely different from the previous version and uses much more reliable sources than the last version did and presents them in a clear, |NPOV manner, with little to do with Christian O'Brien besides the singular sentence, which also shows the differences from the previous version (which had a considerable amount to do with Christian O'Brien). For these reasons, I am strongly given to vote Keep for this article, as a worthy, now notable rewritten and edited version. Paul did good work on this
— User:Silver, 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)