Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gem dragon

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 Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Clearest consensus amongst Deletes and Keeps is to merge; reasonable argument as to why a Redirect would not make sense given other uses of term. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem dragon

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

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

Non-notable D&D topic TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) without substantial merge. Now, what's already there is arguably already too detailed, and the target article is a mess that will require cleanup, but the iconic dragon of D&D has certainly attracted sufficient out-of-universe attention to be a notable topic, so we can safely redirect there without fear of the target falling pray to domino deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual list items should be notable. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:LISTN literally says the opposite. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of articles and the subject is not notable. I also could not find appropriate sources for the article, as when doing a search, I came across sites that don't appear to be reliable sources and unrelated things. Also see WP:ENN. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dragons may be a big thing within the D&D universe, but people seem to be confusing in-universe importance with notability, of which I see no evidence of. I'm not entirely sure Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) will survive an AfD. Either way, it should be deleted as there is nothing of note to merge, but I also support Merge/Redirect over keeping._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keepor merge Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of reliable secondary sources demonstrates why the article should not be kept. I was initially going to support Squeamish Ossifrage's suggestion for a Redirect without a merge. However, doing some searches shows that the term "gem dragon" has been uses for plenty of other minor fictional creatures from other games and franchises. And as the D&D version demonstrates nothing to show that it is any more notable than those other uses, Redirecting it to the D&D related article over anything else does not make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 2 November 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.