Deletion of Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)

Comment: Sorry, but this isn't an encyclopaedia article. If we were to reduce what has been discussed about this in reliable secondary sources we might have a mere blurb. The vast majority of this article is a  and even if it weakly passes ,  overrides  especially per  #1 - the article barely summarises the topic using primary sources and is of no use to anyone who doesn't play this game
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: This article is fancruft, as I mentioned in an earlier AfD. Just because it's in the name doesn't make the in-universe concept individually notable. Fails  as well as being 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ALLPLOT)

Comment: with no prejudice against a renomination.  If there's a textbook example of how '''NOT''' to propose an article for deletion, this should be it.  It's sarcastic, contemptuous and unnecessarily antagonistic.  Whether or not the notability arguments are valid, this is the literal definition of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I feel this just barely passes the threshold for notability, though it needs to be entirely rewritten as all info currently on the page is considered inappropriate under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)