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 Delete both --Stephen 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kezef the Chaos Hound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Very minor character from the Dungeons & Dragons universe, appearing in one redlink sourcebook. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also bundling Dendar the Night Serpent with this nomination- another character from the same source book. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity Gavin, are you actually reading each of the articles that you're voting to delete? Because you've been using the same cut'n'pasted stock deletion reason on many of them.Shemeska (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reasoned rationale for deleting is still a reasoned rationale for deleting, and to be fair to him, I'd prefer he use c&p'd responses as he has demonstrated a very outdated knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much outdated, as incomplete/inaccurate. Outdated would imply that he has had previous knowledge of the subject which did not change as the subject changed; this would seem to conflict with my observations of Gavin's responses. Oh yeah, Shemeska, "stock deletion reason", that was a good one - does that make the reasons non-notable? BOZ (talk) 23:19, 8 March 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.