Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell hound (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 Hellhound#Fiction (a redirect without merging may be appropriate as well). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell hound (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)

This article fails to establish notability. The only source that has any real world info is a trivial, hyperfocused top ten list in a D&D-focused book. TTN (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More DnD fancruft that fails GNG. Reception is a joke. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding nothing that would make this particular depiction of Hellhounds any more deserving of an independent article than any of the myriad of other examples found under Hellhound#Fiction. The incredibly brief "reception" source, that is the only non-primary source being used, is not nearly enough to passing the WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to a potential mention and redirect to the main Hellhound article, but that is about the best it can get. Rorshacma (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellhound - same entity. years apart Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply fancruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellhound#Fiction. I see no evidence how this is more notable than the numerous other fictional hellhounds listed there. Not a very active user (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellhound. The article fails WP:GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources. There is nothing of value to merge anywhere, and I do not think the other proposed target is suitable, as it is a bloated mess that I am not certain should actually exist on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellhound. Sources that are primary for the AD&D article are secondary for this usage of the broader concept. BD2412 T 04:25, 22 January 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.