From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. It's up to editors whether to create a redirect, opinion is divided about this. But consensus is clearly not to keep this. I'm ignoring BOZ's pure vote as usual. Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Seawolf (Dungeons & Dragons)

Seawolf (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are only a handful of primary sources being used. Searching for sources brings up plenty of results on the many other topics with the same name. However, the D&D version has nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The issue is that there is a pattern where D&D articles that are simply redirected/merged, even if that was the result of consensus at a previous discussion, are restored by anonymous IPs later, forcing us to go through the whole procedure again. Deleting the article first, even if a Redirect is then created after, prevents this from occurring. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Couldn't we just ask for the pages to be protected to prevent that? ★Trekker ( talk) 01:17, 26 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. It's up to editors whether to create a redirect, opinion is divided about this. But consensus is clearly not to keep this. I'm ignoring BOZ's pure vote as usual. Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Seawolf (Dungeons & Dragons)

Seawolf (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are only a handful of primary sources being used. Searching for sources brings up plenty of results on the many other topics with the same name. However, the D&D version has nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The issue is that there is a pattern where D&D articles that are simply redirected/merged, even if that was the result of consensus at a previous discussion, are restored by anonymous IPs later, forcing us to go through the whole procedure again. Deleting the article first, even if a Redirect is then created after, prevents this from occurring. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Couldn't we just ask for the pages to be protected to prevent that? ★Trekker ( talk) 01:17, 26 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook