Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerie 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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion. To merge, or not to merge, that may be discussed at the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie dragon[edit]

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

This topic does not establish independent notability, and it only details primary publication details. TTN (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant character in a major fictional series and game. A merge is certainly worth considering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candleabracadabra or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, according to where consensus is tipping at the end. One thing is sure, with only primary sources the topic fails to establish independent notability and cannot be kept as such. Being a "significant character in a major fictional series" is not a notability criteria. Fictional characters are not exempt from our inclusion guideline for stand-alone articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters or appropriate dragon listing. Web Warlock (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Candleabracadabra and Boz. bd2412 T 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
any "per Candleabracadabra" !votes would need to be supported by third party sources to have any validity. Since there are not any in the article and a search failed to find any, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. without actual third party sources, the options are: delete or merge if there is an appropriate target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per rationale above. Dungeons & Dragons is clearly a major fictional series and game. --Space simian (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the topic isn't Dungeons & Dragons, it's Faerie dragon. Per WP:NRVE, each topic has to establish its notability independently of the others, and for that a topic must have been covered in independent secondary sources. While merging has merits, there is no ground for keeping the article as it is.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If you follow the news link under sources there is some magazine stories that talk about these. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this appears to be a more notable creature, with some outside coverage. It appears to be the basis for the creature of the same name in the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne game, and it is described in detail in Farkas, Bart G. (2003). Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Expansion Set Official Strategy Guide. Brady Games. p. 33. ISBN 978-0744002621. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs)
- Disagree, I can't see any outside coverage. Are you sure you've read the correct article ? Besides, Warcraft III is a primary source for the creature and the source you propose is first-party to this primary source. If you don't agree, then your Warcraft III source is completely unrelated to Faerie dragon as it appears in D&D (that's what the lead establishes) and it belongs at Faerie dragon (Warcraft III).Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torchiest. Evidence of a creature originating in one game making it into another is evidence of real-world influence. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2013 (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.