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
Hellhound#Fiction (a redirect without merging may be appropriate as well). –
sgeurekat•
c 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This article fails to establish notability. The only source that has any real world info is a trivial, hyperfocused top ten list in a D&D-focused book.
TTN (
talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm finding nothing that would make this particular depiction of Hellhounds any more deserving of an independent article than any of the myriad of other examples found under
Hellhound#Fiction. The incredibly brief "reception" source, that is the only non-primary source being used, is not nearly enough to passing the
WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to a potential mention and redirect to the main Hellhound article, but that is about the best it can get.
Rorshacma (
talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge as above. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Hellhound#Fiction. I see no evidence how this is more notable than the numerous other fictional hellhounds listed there.
Not a very active user (
talk) 13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Hellhound. The article fails
WP:GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources. There is nothing of value to merge anywhere, and I do not think the other proposed target is suitable, as it is a bloated mess that I am not certain should actually exist on Wikipedia.
Devonian Wombat (
talk) 23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Hellhound. Sources that are primary for the AD&D article are secondary for this usage of the broader concept.
BD2412T 04:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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
Hellhound#Fiction (a redirect without merging may be appropriate as well). –
sgeurekat•
c 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This article fails to establish notability. The only source that has any real world info is a trivial, hyperfocused top ten list in a D&D-focused book.
TTN (
talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm finding nothing that would make this particular depiction of Hellhounds any more deserving of an independent article than any of the myriad of other examples found under
Hellhound#Fiction. The incredibly brief "reception" source, that is the only non-primary source being used, is not nearly enough to passing the
WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to a potential mention and redirect to the main Hellhound article, but that is about the best it can get.
Rorshacma (
talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge as above. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Hellhound#Fiction. I see no evidence how this is more notable than the numerous other fictional hellhounds listed there.
Not a very active user (
talk) 13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Hellhound. The article fails
WP:GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources. There is nothing of value to merge anywhere, and I do not think the other proposed target is suitable, as it is a bloated mess that I am not certain should actually exist on Wikipedia.
Devonian Wombat (
talk) 23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Hellhound. Sources that are primary for the AD&D article are secondary for this usage of the broader concept.
BD2412T 04:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
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.