Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye of Vecna

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 merge to Vecna. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Vecna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't establish notability. The reception is very trivial and really doesn't even belong in the article. TTN (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens below, or merge to Vecna. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-D&D instantiations of/homages to this D&D-originated artifact: [1], [2], as well as the in-jokes and other references documented in Vecna. If this must be merged, then having it as a section in Vecna is reasonable, but this is far too iconic to be simply a list entry. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vecna or Delete - Those are some supremely passing mentions. "Far too iconic" according to who? Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vecna. Vecna is likely notable, but part of that notability comes with the association with the hand and eye, which seem to be very much subtopics. Of the two sources mentioned by Jclemens above, one is a joke in an author's biography (it counts for literally nothing- it's not even something that could really be cited), and the other I cannot access, so cannot assess. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hand and Eye of Vecna, and Sword of Kas, were artifacts from AD&D 1st edition. Vecna, the lich himself, was only fleshed out (sorry, not sorry...) in later editions. So while Vecna may be a convenient article, Vecna himself is a derivative work of the Hand and Eye artifacts. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, and I didn't know it, but I'm not sure it really changes much. We're still pretty light on decent sources about the Eye, and the article on Vecna still serves as a convenient place to consolidate information. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vecna per J. Milburn. Vecna is notable, however the relics associated with him do not really have any independent sources showing that they are especially notable independently of Vecna himself. Like pointed out, one of the two sources brought up in the AFD is one sentence joke, and does nothing for establishing notability. I am unable to find any other independent sources talking about the eye in any depth. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Notability not present. Lacks anything that could be considered something people would search for or find remarkable. --JohnnyCashMoney (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2017 (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.