Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarakocra


 * 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 to delete. Though the lack of third party sources is a legitimate concern. They clearly meet the core policy of WP:V and there is no consensus to delete below. Eluchil404 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Aarakocra

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fictional characters from Dungeons & Dragons. Extensive ghits on fansites, but no third party reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The primary sources serve as extremely reliable sources. As for notability, the sheer number of fan sites establish that.  ➳   Quin 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:FICTION, it's the real-world content in independent sources that makes fictional characters or concepts notable. I don't see much (if any) real-world content here. --B. Wolterding 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge somewhere. These creatures appear in enough fantasy settings (games, books, role-playing source books, magazines, etc.) that we ought to have some information on them, but I wouldn't object to making this page a redirect to some larger list if an appropriate target is available. JavaTenor 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, not particularly notable even within the context of the game. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article is referenced and sourced. Web Warlock 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where's the real-world content in the sources and the article? --B. Wolterding 09:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FICT - there's no independent sources covering this. In the alternative, a merge to a list would be okay. -- Whpq 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JavaTenor. Plus, creature is well-established, having 25+ years of history in the game.--Robbstrd 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 25 years is a long time to go any secondary sources. Not even mentioned here.--Gavin Collins 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: while most of the D&D monster articles aren't worth anything, this is one of the more notable D&D races. --Pak21 11:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Namely why? --B. Wolterding 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Amount of material published about them. Yes, there isn't a sign of a reliable source in the article, but AfD isn't the article improvement drive. --Pak21 11:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge. I do feel that Wikipedia isn't the best place for Monster Manual articles. On the other hand, I think this is worth keeping until we have a good article to merge it into. I imagine that one day we'll have a "Notable creatures of Dungeons & Dragons" or the like. -Harmil 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the issue of references, I'll point out that the article is extensively referenced. It could use inline citations that link this references to specific points, but that's never been a requirement for the existence of an article. -Harmil 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-referenced and solidly notable in the niche of D & D. - Ukulele 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the keepers. ;) BOZ 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.