Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur (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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article consists only of WP:Primary sources. Wikipedia articles require their subjects to be the focus of WP:Secondary sources in order to establish their actual notability. Unless the D&D centaur has been discussed non-trivially by such sources (not merely appeared in a game module or a monster manual— again, these are primary) I do not believe it will qualify as notable. KDS 4444 Talk  15:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. As per your other nominations, the fact that the article cites primary sources is not a reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The Paizo and "Heroic Worlds" sources are independent, reliable, secondary sources, so the GNG is met. The fact that there are other primary sources referenced in the article doesn't negate that coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2016 (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.