Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draeden


 * 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   merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Draeden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999). BOZ (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. As far as Wikipedia policies, this fails WP:GNG with all of the sources being primary and so the options are: deletion or if there is appropriate content and appropriate target article, merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Merge or redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999) would be acceptable, but this monster is obscure even in D&D rules.  It is much more suited to a D&D Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' or merge Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work (or, in this case, group of works. When a fictional universe is so complicated or important or has so many different manifestations, that w need to divide up the coverage (as we certainly do for this one), then the individual parts of it will some of them necessarily be about only the in-universe portions. Otherwise, it's like asking that a subarticle on someone's Scientific work doesn't talk about his Life--in a split article, that's inevitable. If one really thinks this way, we can solve it by retaining all the content and merging it into a single very long article, but that's not a useful arrangement. and Furthermore, the nomination gives  no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason.   Anything  someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect.
 * And in any case it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * can you point out the policy that says "Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work"? I am pretty sure such a rider does not exist on WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG as it has zero third-party reliable sources. A merge might be appropriate, but even that's pushing it. - Aoidh (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2013 (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.