Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudodragon

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). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudodragon

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if in-universe things do not deserve articles. I don't expect pseudodragons to have much impact on the real world.BayShrimp (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Dragons in D&D are surely notable (indeed, they're iconic) and we can reasonably cover pseudodragons as a part of that. This means that pseudodragons perhaps warrant more than an index entry. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. If I'm remembering correctly, Pesudodragons aren't actually a type of dragon, so merging to the main dragon article would be a bit odd. But, if other people agree that is the more appropriate merge target, then I wouldn't really have an objection. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I mostly played in 3.0 and 3.5, and they were dragons back then. I do note that there's a passing mention of them in the article on dragons in D&D currently. I'm certainly not attached to my suggestion; I'm happy for an alternative merge target if that's preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I'm thinking of the 2nd Edition AD&D Monstrous Manual, where they were listed as a "Dragonet" alongside several other "not-quite-a-dragon" monsters. But, hey, if other versions considered them to be a full dragon, then I'm all for using the Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) article as the merge target! 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've never really been into D&D so I don't know which index it belongs in, assuming this anonymous IP is correct, but if it's something within the D&D Universe, it belongs there. I've never thought in-universe subjects automatically deserve to be deleted. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2016 (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.