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

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 Reptilian humanoid. The significant coverage in secondary reliable sources seems to be limited to a single source (Tresca) which provides a paragraph and possibly another (ScreenRant) which provides a few sentences. This is below the threshold of notability usually upheld at AfDs, and the keep !votes do not provide any policy-based argument why our usual notability standards should not be applied in this case. There is consensus that Reptilian humanoid is the natural merge target. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonborn (Dungeons & Dragons)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable fictional race that fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and this article is either sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources or trivial mentions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false reference. There's nothing factually in the WP:GAMEGUIDE that mandates deletion. It doesn't read like an "instruction manual, travel guide, video game guide, internet guide, FAQ, textbooks or annotated text, scientific journal, or include academic language", and it's not a "case study". Don't quote pages that have nothing to do with your point. - IcarusATB (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, "Wikipedia is not a manual". Inasmuch as this is simply giving information from the D&D manuals, WP:GAMEGUIDE applies. This page tells me a description, alignment and other info that is straight out of the game guides. It certainly has no notability outside of the game. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail WP:GNG. Meets all requirements. "Secondary sources" are given. They are "reliable", "independent", and most of all has "significant coverage".

Really? "Non-notable"? The page content is used by literally millions of people who are interested in the topic. It's a game played by literally millions of people. This isn't even a real point of evidence, and utterly lacks credibility. "Non-notable" in this case is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that it's incredibly notable. Just because they're not popular to you doesn't mean they're not notable.
Yes, it's "fictional". Fictional characters are permitted on WP. Being fictional doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, whether one likes the game or not. Are we going to delete the Kree or Wolverine, too, just because they're fictional?
There's like at least half a dozen references on this page from "reliable", "secondary" sources which are not "trivial". Read the actual references, don't make presumptions about them.
And, of course there's "primary" sources ... you can't discuss the Kree or Wolverine either without including Marvel material.
Additionally, if you look at the recent history of D&D pages that are candidates for deletion on the list of pages in the "Alerts" tab at WikiProject D&D Article Alerts, you'll see that about 85% of them are sponsored by ZXCVBNM. It's pretty clear he's not working in the best interest of Wikipedia, he's purposefully seeking out D&D pages to remove. - IcarusATB (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, of couse, mean "notable" in the sense of being encyclopedic, not "notable" as in famous or well known.
Many of the "secondary" sources have trivial coverage like "dragon races are more ostentatious".
Calling me out is a argument to the person and is pretty rude. AfDs should be considered on their own merits, not based on who created them. I am certainly not being disruptive._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources Lissauer and Tresca would seem to be independent RS, and as such, would indicate notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: The Lissauer source is WP:TRIVCOV - they only get mentioned as part of a single sentence ("Dragonborn favor warlords, fighters and paladins"). The Tresca source gives them approx. one paragraph but does not expound very much on it beyond how they were based on Draconians from Dragonlance. There's certainly enough for a mention in Reptilian humanoid but not for their own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The very few secondary sources that mention this fictional race are the very definition of trivial. Many of them are nothing more than reviews for products they appear in, that do nothing but confirm that they appear in them. Even the books mentioned above are, as described by Zxcvbnm, extremely brief coverage of them that do not indicate any real world notability, and merely establish that WP:ITEXISTS. Rorshacma (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reptilian humanoid, where they are mentioned. The article is sourced mostly to primary sources, and the secondary sources provided are trivial mentions. As a result, this article fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Current reception is a trivial mention. Nothing in the article satisfies WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Reptilian humanoid per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to reptilian humanoid. The Tresca source [1] is more than I expected, but I am afraid a single non-PLOT source is not enough. In either case, since we have one decent source, rescue what we can with it and merge to r h. Seems like the best solution unless more sources are found (then please ping me and I'll review them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dungeons and Dragons media has served as a baseline for a lot of fantasy media since its inception. Deleting all of these D&D pages seems like a scorched earth policy to me. Waxworker (talk) 09:50, 16 March 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.