Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hezrou


 * 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 and redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hezrou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG/NFICTION. DnD fancruft, deprodded by the usual fan culprit, sigh. Here we go again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd ask you to desist from the name calling. The "usual fan culprit" (that's me, apparently) simply disapproves of editors trying to get articles they don't like deleted under the table by prodding. Prodding should only be used for uncontroversial deletion. Not all of these articles have been deleted once taken to AfD, so it should be obvious by now that their deletion is not uncontroversial. I regularly monitor prodded articles and deprod any article where I consider the prod has been misapplied (and trust me, there are far too many of them). So kindly stop misusing prods (and denigrating those editors who remove them as they are fully entitled to do) and take these articles straight to AfD. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur on the name calling. Let's keep all our AfDs (and everything else on wiki) civil and respectful. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Minor fictional creature, using only primary sources. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing in reliable, secondary sources.  It could potentially be used as a redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) (though I doubt its that common of a search term), but even then, I would advocate deletion first, as D&D articles that are merely turned into redirects per consensus have the habit of being restored by IP editors.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think this article should be here, but I think the argument for deletion here is WP:ITSCRUFT. Can we stick to arguments about it not meeting GNG? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). The article doesn't go beyond proving that the fictional element exists and doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Why would a prod be controversial here? – sgeureka t•c 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because even if an article isn't kept at AfD, a prod is also designed to destroy a perfectly legitimate possibility of merging and redirecting. That's why. It is commonly used by editors who don't like a specific article or category of articles in order to get those articles deleted without anyone noticing. Its use on any article whose complete deletion is not blatantly uncontroversial should be prevented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete -per WP:GAMEGUIDE. No notability outside of D&D and this is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There is no need to retain such trivial information, and its retention even as a redirect just opens up the usual cycle of someone logging out to discreetly restore it. TTN (talk) 22:49, 25 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.