Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dragons (Saint of Dragons): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:55, 7 March 2008 editGavin.collins (talk \| contribs)18,503 edits Recomend deletion← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:19, 8 March 2008 edit undoDoctorfluffy (talk \| contribs)8,695 edits delete, remove extra sigNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~--] (]) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~~===]===		===]===
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|F}}		{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|F}}

Line 9:		Line 9:
	:* Can't say I disagree... —] (]) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)		:* Can't say I disagree... —] (]) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' as there are no ] to demonstrate ] of these fictional creatures.--] (]) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' as there are no ] to demonstrate ] of these fictional creatures.--] (]) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' per Gavin Collins. ] (]) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:19, 8 March 2008

An article about dragons in a fantasy novel does not meet notability standards. —BradV 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: An article about Tolkein's dragons probably could meet notability standards. There is nothing inherently non-notable about topic, if scholars and critics have written about. Perhaps you meant to say "This article ... "? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, condense, merge. Appears to belong in the article about the book. Although it is true that some notable characters within notable books by highly notable authors have warrented articles of their own, I don't think this author is on par with Tolkein. It also seems that the this article may go too far in its over-descriptiveness of elements in the book. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of these fictional creatures.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)