Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraken (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 Merge as consensus once again shows there's no inherited notability simply because of what information there may be about the subject, and this is also another case where the character is unsurprisingly best known for that series. Anything essential to merge is now available in the history and it's the obligations of the users here to merge it (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  01:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Kraken (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also merge to the Kraken article here. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is again a D&D instantiation of a prior mythological creature which has clearly influenced later fictional depictions of this element. 'Kraken' is used for so much, however, that a Google search is pretty daunting. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. I'm open to being convinced that this has "influenced later fictional depictions of this element", but, first, we'd need some evidence of this, and, second, an explanation of why this warrants keeping a separate article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Pretty much every source included here is a primary source, published by the creators of D&D.  The claims that this version of the creature has "clearly influenced later fictional depictions of this element" is rather ludicrous, as there is absolutely no evidence or sourced piece of information showing this to be the case.  After some rather extensive searching, I can find nothing that shows why this particular version of a rather common fictional creature has any sort of notability that requires its own article.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, no third-party sources apparent that would establish notability.  Sandstein   09:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Given that almost all the sources are primary sources, there is precious little to go on to sustain the notion this beast is somehow independently notable. There are a considerable number of claims about the aspects of this beast that are not support by cites, and portions of it read thoroughly as MOS:INUNIVERSE. The sole external link which goes to....a forum. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per above, keep link to Kraken somewhere in the description. Artw (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2016 (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.