Deletion of Draconity

Comment: We have a policy of |verifiability to prevent this sort of thing. This article has been in existence for almost two years http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draconity&limit=500&action=history. "Come on guys, give them a chance, they'll produce reliable sources .. probably" does not cut it. A word concocted by followers of some on-line fetishist subculture is just another example of |things made up in school one day. Not to mention , , , , ,  and . There is no encyclopaedia article to be had here, period
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NFT||WP:NEO||WP:DICDEF||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:CRUFT||WP:BOLLOCKS)

Comment: with caveats from discussion in previous thread.  I.e., I agree with Titanium Dragon.  I feel having a WP article on draconity has been valuable, I've contributed to it when I could, and I've been meaning to add better sources for a while.  But many good points have been made on this page.  I'd love to argue the article needs cleanup, not removal, but I just don't see enough verifiable sources right now for .  The best solution is to fold this back into Otherkin, which does at least pass that threshold, and then bring Draconity back if it ever starts getting attention on its own merits
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: WP:NEO and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Otherkin 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BOLLOCKS)