Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerie dragon (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Editors are welcome to merge any details that seem relevant to the target page. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Faerie dragon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional creature, no evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG, PRIMARY sources only, pure WP:PLOT, BEFORE does not show better sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to either Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) or List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete or redirect - No sources to establish notability. “Primary not bad” simply expresses that one shouldn’t assume a primary source is a bad source, likely in the case of using a primary source in the place of a secondary source because it makes sense. It doesn’t encourage all primary sourcing. It doesn’t encourage ignoring WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. Many of the D&D articles are well put together, especially compared to a lot of other non-notable articles, but only in the sense of something that belongs on a fan wiki. These are not made for the general reader, so they should be in a place specialty users would looks. TTN (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). I could have sworn we already had an AFD that resulted in this, but I guess I was thinking of the similar Pseudodragon.  In any case, the creature is not notable, as it does not have much coverage in reliable, secondary sources, so it should not be kept.  As Dragons, as a group, are one of the D&D creatures notable enough to warrant an article, and Faerie Dragons already have an entry there, Redirecting it there makes the most sense.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * keep GNG/SIGCOV satisfied by publication history in both Paizo and Wizards of the Coast/TSR. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize those are all WP:PRIMARY sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. If a topic is the subject of dozens of publications since the 1970s then these sources should be taken into account for GNG.  There is a distinction to be made between the content of the article, which can be improved, and the sources, primary or secondary which contribute to WP:SUSTAINED.  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable fancruft. Not even sure Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) is notable, which is ironic but makes sense due to the overly broad scope.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No Opinion Not anymore, just interesting to me that BOZ, Piotrus, and TTN are all doing stuff again. Those were the days!  Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean, but User:TTN hasn't even posted here (yet). I'll ping him, maybe he will have a clue as to what you refer to? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He'll find it eventually I'm sure, but until then there's no need to WP:CANVASS (even if unintentionally) with a ping. I imagine Peregrine Fisher was speaking generally of the slew of AFDs and seeing the same people over and over in them. BOZ (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The text of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is more robust than you represent. As for WP:GNG, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  Paizo, Kobold Press, Necromancer Games, and others are reputable third-party publishers of D&D product.  WP:IS uses the actual term "third party" to describe an independent source.  Finally, the goal of Wikipedia is: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment."  Editors making a subjective judgement that a topic belongs on a fan wikia rather than here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's simply dancing around the issue. We have very specific ways of dealing with fiction. Rather than try to work within that, you're trying every single possible avenue to skip around for only your specific area of interest. If you support an article or at least coverage of literally everything, you're opening Wikipedia up to literally millions upon millions of trivial articles and lists. TTN (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fictional, usual-variety fancruft. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) - they probably deserve at least a mention there; without secondary sources, though, this can't really have a standalone article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2019 (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.