Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drachentaube


 * 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, as per the consensus here. Drachentaube appears to be a neologism and the article is not supported by multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. HTH HAND. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Drachentaube

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable "mythological" beast; not enough reliable, independent sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a feeling of hoaxiness about this article. Rhinoracer 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot really say any more than I have on Talk:Drachentaube. It is very depressing. Ednan 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep On the other hand, maybe I can. "Category:Heraldic beasts" is still severely underpopulated if heraldry is to have more than just superficial coverage in Wikipedia.  An heraldic ordinary, sub-ordinary, charge etc. does not need to be notable in itself to warrant inclusion, it just needs to have been used in heraldry (which I have satisfactorily demonstrated). For example, is Ypotryll especially notable? It is a case of the whole being more than the sum of the parts.  Ednan 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Of course, Ypotryll doesn't seem notable, and Category:Heraldic beasts could use some scrutiny. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether it's notable enough or not is another question (31 Ghits), but it doesn't appear to be a hoax - the image comes from here, backed up by this.  Eliminator JR Talk  21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Rehome) This isn't notable in itself - not every microfact or mini-monster connected with heraldry is. There is however surely a place for a useful portmanteau article on Rare heraldic beasts (or Trivial heraldic inventions - whatever you want to call it) in which this (and the Ypotryll and quite a number of others) could find a legit home. But it's not worth its own article. HeartofaDog 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I found this article looking for information on this beast. I expect Wikipedia to cover things like this and would have been frustrated if there had been no article.  The article is well done and informative.  If there is some debate as to the legitimacy of this beast, as some have argued, the proper course of action is to note the controversy in the article rather than simply deleting it.  All in all I find this information to be notable and well presented. R.E.S.A. 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See also comment by Tressure at Talk:College of Dracology Ednan 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The dove with dragon parts seems to be real and genuinely appears on the crest of Dr. Clackson. However, the name appears to be a nickname for the creature - not an officially recognised name. Nor is it a nickname which has become widely used. It'd be notable enough to discuss as a dove with dragon parts in an article on heraldic oddities, but the name is not notable. It may become widely used in the future, but we don't know that yet. Polenth 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The comments of soi-disant heraldic experts aside, the Drachentaube has a basis in history and heraldry alike. Both informative and well-written, this article is encyclopedic and deserves to remain on Wikipedia.  --TheTriumvir 03:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could share with us the sources from which you've gained your knowledge of the drachentaube. Because as far as I've seen, his beast has little basis in history, but rather first appeared in the late 20th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Speaking of category of heraldic beasts... why not combine them into a single article on heraldic beasts? Might make a decent little article.  — LactoseTI T 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be perfectly acceptable, especially since the device allows section redirects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: The College of Arms blazoned it, according to Dr. Clackson himself, as A dove argent beaked azure with a Dragon's wings displayed and a Dragon's legs and a Dragon's tail. The beast is  an invention from the grantee's own Fake Middle English poetry. The Google results show that the word shows up in Wikipedia, and in two contributions by the grantee. The Scottish Heraldry Society seems to have taken down  their page. WP:NEOLOGISM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The above assertion that the drachentaube was invented in a poem published in Dragonlore in 2004 is incorrect as the creature had already been referred to 5 years earlier in the "Contemporary Heraldry" section of the March 1999 edition of the Heraldry Society's Heraldry Gazette (the same reference as is given in the article). 81.154.90.60 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the second edit of this anon. Please read WP:SOCK. It's the same poem; it doesn't matter where it appeared first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note There is no poem in the Heraldry Gazette article. It is a report on a new grant of arms.  And yes, it does mention the “drachentaube”. Ednan 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. See Talk:Drachentaube.--Wetman 03:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - see Clackson's Scots Arms at The Heraldry Scociety of Scotland. The poem is there. --Evb-wiki 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How does this constitute an independent source? The linked webpage is from the "Members' Interactive Galleries" section of the Heraldry Society of Scotland's website. In all probability Dr. Clackson added this page himself; I certainly hope so, because the "poem" that reports the "legend" of the Drachentaube first appeared in Dragonlore, and is copyright Stephen Gregory Clackson. If this post is by the creature's inventor, it in no way constitutes an independent, reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note Allow me to draw your attention to my note above. The Heraldry Gazette reference Heraldry Gazette (ISSN 0437-2980), LXXI (new series) March 1999, 6 is an independent report on the new grant of arms (not the poem) and the term “drachentaube” is used there. Ednan 10:58, 11 June 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.