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 and redirect to Creature_type#Giant. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verbeeg[edit]

I placed a prod tag on this article, and left what I thought was a gentle, educational message that it was a "Directory-like listing of non-notable fictional monster. Sources on page are drawn from within the D&D books, are as such are primary. Primary sources are good for meeting WP:V, but not for WP:N. This article would need more than one third-party source to meet notability requirements." An editor removed my tag with the following edit summary, "rmv template--i object to deletionism in general." So I must bring this article here for a debate. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. It's good to see that there are people out there who must fulfill their holy mission. Merge to User:AnteaterZot, so he can improve this terrible article taking up so much bandwidth.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles like this one make Wikipedia look bad, and comments like that one make you look bad. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, deleting all these crufty fiction articles is sure making all the non-fiction articles look superb. George Washington is looking so much better already.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AnteaterZot has only been editing since August 16, 2007. It seems most of these deletionists are n00bs who don't know the true spirit of Wikipedia and are too lazy or unsophisticated to write or improve articles, so they take joy in deleting and destroying them instead.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coming from an IP whose first edits are December 29, 2007 according to their own edit log. TJ Spyke 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I object to fancruft in general. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creature_type#Giant. Tevildo (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, D&Dcruft. No notability in the wider world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Removing templates in this manner is not editing in good faithSpinningspark (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding templates in this manner is not editing in good faith. Also, I object to irrational deletionism in general.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creature_type#Giant per Tevildo. BOZ (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely in-universe (see WP:IN-U), no third party sources. TJ Spyke 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep per suggestions above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creature_type#Giant per Tevildo. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Creature_type#Giant Web Warlock (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete. I also dislike deletionism and blind adding of templates as well, but this one can be merged. Web Warlock (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the article can be removed now that the merge is done? Merge. ··gracefool ☺ 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be removed. Sorry. Busy day. Web Warlock (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply redirect it in that case, but I don't want to do something that an admin might object to. BOZ (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (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.