Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowmere

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 delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowmere

(Find video game sources: "Shadowmere" "Elder Scrolls" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable fictional being. I cannot locate any reliable independent in-depth sources for WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. The article content is primarily WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT, and does not establish a claim for notability with non-in-universe content as per WP:WAF. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. There are many hits otherwise, but none appear to be both reliable and in-depth. Taking to AfD instead of PROD due to number of search hits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best merge. I were able to find a single article from 2011, only guiding in how to get it instead of being some in-depth coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, and written more like a good faith essay than a legit article. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, there's a little bit of coverage, such as [1] and [2], though they're top ten lists. Obviously, this belongs on a list of characters from the Elder Scrolls series. However, I don't think we have one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does sound like an article we might need, however. The series is continuous so the characters are shared. But one would need to be an expert to make it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.