Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of less common dragons in Dungeons & Dragons

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) --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of less common dragons in Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

No secondary sources to prove notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The articles are merely lists of statistics—Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagra shtak 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete No notability established. These stats can only be of interest to D&D players, and belong in D&D sourcebooks. BreathingMeat (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) BOZ (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge what? This is just a bunch of sourcebook stats. There is a liiiiitle bit more information on these dragons in the sourcebooks, but not enough content to warrant inclusion in wp. IMO the only notable or real world fact about these minor dragons is that there is a whole bunch of other dragons in D&D. This fact is already adequetely covered in Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BreathingMeat (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not even a lot of content in this article that would be useful for D&D players. There are many other (and better) lists on the internet, Wikipedia doesn't need one. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, per BOZ. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BOZ. Edward321 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Boz. These articles need more content, and the material and sources are out there, but it makes more sense for that improvement to happen in a combined article.Shemeska (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than add a laundry list to the Dragon article Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I know very little about D&D, but I do know that this is cruft.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. It's non-notable fiction. Nothing worth merging here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they fail WP:V, WP:NOT#GUIDE. This material is covered in the various Dungeons & Dragons game guides, so it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). That article is where this info belongs, and where people will go to look it up anyway; splitting it off into fragmentary lists is counterproductive and annoys the pig. Freederick (talk) 22:57, 18 January 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.