Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons)

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 merge. There is clear consensus here that this article does not sufficiently demonstrate notability to merit stand-alone status, but less clear consensus as to whether or not the appropriate response is deletion or merger. Since lack of consensus to delete defaults to keep (not necessarily in current form), I am defaulting to the merge. The majority of those arguing for merge seem to suggest Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) as the appropriate destination. A mention of the reworking of the legend may be appropriate in Lindworm, but there isn't really sufficient material here of real-world notability to merge. Perhaps a "see also" with a pointer to the appropriate new section would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons)

Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage, but has appeared in numerous first party supplements. May deserve a mention on pages regarding dragons or undead, but I can see no reason why it deserves its own article. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Snide comments about D&D are unhelpful at any time but are especially inappropriate since Gary Gygax just died. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That wasn't a snide comment. He was just mentioning the fact that we over at the relevent WikiProject are currently on a drive to remove fancruft, and welcome help. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per the OED snide means Insinuating, sneering, slyly derogatory.. Your reference to fancruft is also snide. Such comments are not civil. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am aware of what 'snide' means, and so I am capable of seeing that the original comment was not snide. 'Fancruft' is a recognised term regarding types of content- fancruft is information that would be of interest to only an extreme fan, and has no real encyclopedic value. That is what this is- the information is of interest only to fans of the game (myself included) but of no value to an encyclopedia. Describing this as fancruft is no more an insult than changing grammar in an article. If you believe people are being uncivil here, your perception of civility is a little warped. In any case, if we're going to be picky, I could respond that you should assume an assumption of good faith and call you uncivil for implying my assertion of cruft was cruftcruft. Thankfully though, I'm not picky. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The "D&D Spring Cleaning" thing was in existence before the unfortunate news. If anything, cleaning up Wikipedia's treatment of D&D is an even BETTER idea now, as there are probably more people now than ever before coming to Wikipedia for information about Gary and his game. --Ig8887 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (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.