Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abrian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. "Wikipedia is not paper" just means that we should not delete things "because we are running out of space!", not that we should keep everything. Fram (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abrian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in a couple of supplements. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or Redirect into Planescape. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is such a minor creature. Even I doubt I could find any thing on it. Web Warlock (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) --Ig8887 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Web Warlock — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. I see your guideline written by the few and ignored by the multitude and raise you a policy. Let the D&D wikiproject decide what to do with it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone who has commented in this AfD is linked to the WikiProject, be they a member, a sympathiser or someone who just comments over there a lot. We have bantered back and forth over there for long enough- it's time to actually do something. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why didn't you just merge or redirect it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to? As I see it, this information has no place in an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Creature_type_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Magical_beast? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many. If we mentioned every instance of every type of monster, it would be stupifyingly large article. Only particuarly relelvent/notable instances of each creature type should be included. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to merge them, just do a redirect. If someone finds sources they can easily add that info to where the article redirects, or undo the redirect, and we're not bogged down with a ton of AfDs. The amount of work that's going to go into these AfDs could probably redirect 200 articles. Also, it would be easier to watch a few pages than watch for a ton of articles as they're recreated. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd still have to watch the redirect pages. People would resent mass redirecting, at least this way we demonstrate that there is consensus rather than just someone deciding they don't want the articles there. This discussion would be better here so that other interested parties can easily see it. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to merge them, just do a redirect. If someone finds sources they can easily add that info to where the article redirects, or undo the redirect, and we're not bogged down with a ton of AfDs. The amount of work that's going to go into these AfDs could probably redirect 200 articles. Also, it would be easier to watch a few pages than watch for a ton of articles as they're recreated. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many. If we mentioned every instance of every type of monster, it would be stupifyingly large article. Only particuarly relelvent/notable instances of each creature type should be included. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Creature_type_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Magical_beast? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to? As I see it, this information has no place in an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why didn't you just merge or redirect it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone who has commented in this AfD is linked to the WikiProject, be they a member, a sympathiser or someone who just comments over there a lot. We have bantered back and forth over there for long enough- it's time to actually do something. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2008 (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.