Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts
Pointing out that an article is not currently sourced up to satisfaction is one thing, but making the claim that it is not ''possibly'' sourceable in light of multiple and well-known primary sources is quite another, and has been done far too frequently and reflexively of late.  Established precedent has been repeatedly upheld in AfDs of this nature that  marginally "independent" sources such as magazines are sufficient to provide evidence of notability when the game/fictional systems to which they belong are very notable; depth and quality come into play more than number and strict independence in cases like this  because (and how about this for real-world significance) it's what actually sells those magazines and books.  And note well: the purpose for "multiple secondary sources" is ''fact checking'', an issue that is hardly critical in fictional characters and objects of which the characteristics and functions are defined by their creators and developers.  While consensus can indeed change, I see no indication that it's about to from the current climate in the articles-for-discussion community.  Our focus, therefore, must be on improving what we have, and if we can't do it, or don't think we should, let others do the work.  At the ''very'' least, a |merger should be performed into the over-arching topic in order to preserve significant information as per the arguments and most likely outcome Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bregan D'aerthe|here.  In short, keep per my arguments and the outcome of multiple former AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures|this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus in fiction (2nd nomination)|this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mielikki (Forgotten Realms)|this, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faer%C3%BBn|this, etc. etc
— User:Zahakiel, 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:MERGE (Wikipedia:Merging)