Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockatrice (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 delete. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged (WP:JUSTAVOTE), but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. – sgeureka t•c 14:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like many of the other D&D creatures based on well-known mythological creatures, there are really no sources that give this particular version any notability. All available sources regarding this particular incarnation are either primary, in-universe only, or trivial mentions that only establish that WP:ITEXISTS but little else.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * merge to cockatrice - same entity. different century Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication how this is different from Cockatrice. The publication history doesn't need to be covered at all for nonnotable D&D creatures. – sgeureka t•c 12:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, consisting entirely of primary sources. "Keep" votes have presented precisely zero rationale. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's subject has received no coverage in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not quite sure why this one needed to be relisted, as the only Keep entries are WP:JUSTAVOTE. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable monstercruft. Fails GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:09, 21 January 2020 (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.