Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chan (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 Archomental#Good archomentals. Please list the other articles separately (which could be one AfD for the lot) - they haven't been tagged for deletion and only some of the votes here refer to them. Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chan (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Archomental#Good archomentals. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially thought a merge all would have been fine, but spot-checking for RS'ing, I see things like [1], which makes me think a per-element exam might be more appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental#Good archomentals per the above. Seems like a win-win, to keep the information and expand the other article. bd2412 T 20:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental. Furthermore I propose adding the other creatures listed at Archomental to this AFD. None of these articles appear to have any sourcing other than of in-universe game materials or effectively in-universe dedicated D&D magazines.

Ping TTN, Jclemens, and bd2412 to consider commenting on my proposal to batch 10 additional articles into this discussion, all as MERGE to Archomental. Alsee (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging as to all at this juncture. bd2412 T 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure on all of them, merge or delete the result is the same. TTN (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I recommend against these kind of mass-list AfDs? They create confusion and bad feeling; it's entirely possible that some of these are notable and others not. One by one may be slow, but it is effective and allows people a good-faith chance to identify possible sources/make changes to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Archomental for Chan (Dungeons & Dragons) only. On adding other articles to the nomination after the fact, I share concerns with Jclemens and J Milburn. BOZ (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:19, 29 September 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.