Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucker's kobolds

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. Please don't send the kobold archers after me. Nandesuka (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker's kobolds

Tucker's kobolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Group of Dungeons & Dragons kobolds named after a Dungeon Master named Tucker. Article claims that they have been used numerous times as examples- I see no evidence of this, with the article citing only a single editorial. May possibly be keepable if sources exist, but probably better suited to a mention in the article on D&D kobolds. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). Web Warlock (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If even the nominator thinks it should be merged, what's it doing here on AfD? Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    We can form some level of consensus. Maybe these aren't notable at all, maybe they're notable enough for their own article. I don't know, that's why I brought it here. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    Merge discussions are out of place in the AFD process. The discussion page for the article can be used to form a level of consensus just as easily. Rray (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    Discussion is encouraged. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    No one indicated otherwise. But everything has a time and a place, and the appropriate place for a merge discussion is on the talk page of an article. Rray (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    Well, nom indiated that a mention in (implied) Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) might be best — and it is extant; this is not the same as a merge of this article to there. It is a question of an appropriate level of coverage; there are no out of universe sources on this so a mere mention is sufficient and a merge is thus inappropriate. i.e. delete, it's already covered at an appropriate level of detail. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Rray (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per others here. The AFD nomination should really be withdrawn, since even the nominator agrees that a merge is appropriate here. Rray (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — non-notable. Already covered in Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This essay on someone's favorite Kobold fails WP:NOT#OR, and is not fit to keep or merge. The reference cited appears to be self-publication and copyright violation, so the article also fails WP:V. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The reference cited is an opinion piece in a first party D&D magazine, by the editor, about a group of kobolds created by someone else. The website is a copyvio of said opinion piece. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect shadzar-talk 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor game mod. This is non-notable at the garage band level. --John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 11 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.