Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chromatic dragon

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 Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Please be selective of what to merge, don't merge all of it. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatic dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional creature, no evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG, PRIMARY sources only, pure WP:PLOT, BEFORE does not show better sources. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no helpful rationale _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable (especially potentially notable topics being prodded to attempt to get them deleted without discussion), as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) if that stays, otherwise Delete. The article itself is nothing more than a bloated how-to-play guide mixed with absurd amounts of detail better suited for a fan wiki Devonian Wombat talk 11:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is entirely a game guide/character plot and is of no encyclopaedic use to anyone who doesn't play this game. Fine with redirection if a suitable target is found. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure plot. Not a shred of analysis. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) per above. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) - there may be too much "plot", but "PRIMARY sources only" is incorrect. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. I am not sure there is enough to justify a free-standing article, but any important content on chromatic dragons surely belongs in the article on dragons more broadly. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - Current reception sourcing is trivial. It does not establish notability for the grouping. TTN (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added another secondary source. Please take it into consideration with regard to the deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG-failing plotcruft, nothing to merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:00, 11 December 2019 (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.