Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrachan

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. Secret ^account 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destrachan[edit]

Non-notable D&D entity. Origin of the term is, like the editor who removed the prod tag, a distraction. Unsourced, in-universe. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Notable and sourced. Deletionist disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Deleting all these crufty fiction articles is sure making all the non-fiction articles look superb. AnteaterZot has only been editing since August 16, 2007. It seems most of these deletionists are n00bs who don't know the true spirit of Wikipedia and are too lazy or unsophisticated to write or improve articles, so they take joy in deleting and destroying them instead.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that the source is primary, and does nothing to establish notability. The editor 4.130.134.233 has only been editing since today, and has been removing my tags from a variety of articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because you are a fucking dumbass and a troll. Also, there is a secondary source here. Also, there is no policy which states articles need secondary sources to establish notability.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2005.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not according to your edit log. According to your edit log, today was the first day you started editing (almost all of which are removing notability tags to articles without establishing the articles notability). Also, do NOT attack other editors as that only makes you look bad and hurts your chances of getting what you want. TJ Spyke 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Obviously you cannot distinguish between an IP address and a user name. --4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do not ASSume things. I have have far more confirmed experience than you (even my IP has has more edits than you). TJ Spyke 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references (just links to other Wikiepedia articles), in universe, no claims to notability. TJ Spyke 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, another deletionist troll. These deletionists' votes should just be counted all together as one, since they are all just a single hive mind.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop insulting other editors or you will be banned. You have yet to provide a valid reason that the article should be kept. TJ Spyke 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fictional race with no wider notability outside of the D&D universe. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, etc. Lankiveil (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete idiot IP speaks for itself. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That "Idiot IP" is one of wikipedia's readers, and I'll have you give him the respect you would any editor. Also, AFDs are not a vote, so please provide a reason for your deletion. Fosnez (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Tell me why I should respect someone who doesn't give other editors respect himself. The fact that he has to resort to attacking the credibility of the nominator instead of giving actual reasons to keep the article is very telling. JuJube (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment; he doesn't have to attack people instead of arguing for the article; he chooses to, just like you're choosing to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - quoted from WP:N, pertaining to fiction: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A monster manual is not independent of the subject in this case, and is therefore not a reliable source. Lacking others, this article fails WP:N & WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll also back Fosnez; even if the editor in question is a troll, that is no excuse for the harsh language. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability and verifiability. I also agree that calling editors "idiot" is unproductive. Please let us stick to the articles under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely minor race, in-universe perspective. Wikipedia is not a D&D Monster Manual. RJC ^Talk 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke and Lankiveil. Pigman☿ 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unlike other D&D things, the only text written about destrachans is the 3ed Monster Manual and immediately derivative works. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (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.