Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerie dragon (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dragonets. Editors are welcome to merge any details that seem relevant to the target page. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie dragon

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Faerie dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional creature, no evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG, PRIMARY sources only, pure WP:PLOT, BEFORE does not show better sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - No sources to establish notability. “Primary not bad” simply expresses that one shouldn’t assume a primary source is a bad source, likely in the case of using a primary source in the place of a secondary source because it makes sense. It doesn’t encourage all primary sourcing. It doesn’t encourage ignoring WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. Many of the D&D articles are well put together, especially compared to a lot of other non-notable articles, but only in the sense of something that belongs on a fan wiki. These are not made for the general reader, so they should be in a place specialty users would looks. TTN (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The text of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is more robust than you represent. As for WP:GNG, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Paizo, Kobold Press, Necromancer Games, and others are reputable third-party publishers of D&D product.[1] WP:IS uses the actual term "third party" to describe an independent source. Finally, the goal of Wikipedia is: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment." Editors making a subjective judgement that a topic belongs on a fan wikia rather than here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's simply dancing around the issue. We have very specific ways of dealing with fiction. Rather than try to work within that, you're trying every single possible avenue to skip around for only your specific area of interest. If you support an article or at least coverage of literally everything, you're opening Wikipedia up to literally millions upon millions of trivial articles and lists. TTN (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (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.
  1. ^ "The Most Giftable Third Party 5e Supplements For Your DM". Geek and Sundry. 2018-11-29. Retrieved 2019-12-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faerie_dragon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=930148190"