Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. It's already mentioned in Centaurs in popular culture, and there is no (non-trivial and sourced) material there for merging. – sgeureka t•c 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. Current secondary sources seem to all be trivial mentions that do not equate to the significant coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss where to redirect or merge to, if anywhere.
 * Delete - It seems that this was nominated and kept at a previous AFD due to the claim that it was discussed in secondary sources. However, actually looking in to it, it would seem that the only bit of non-in universe information that is being supported by those secondary sources is that the fact that they are based off of the mythological centaur.  That one, rather common sense, fact is really not enough to establish notability, and the coverage about them in non-primary sources appears to be too trivial to pass the WP:GNG.  As with many of the other well-known mythological creatures, there is a expansive in popular culture article where this version is already mentioned, so a possibly redirect after deletion may be possible.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Daranios below, or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * merge to centaur - critter with identical attributes...just a few thousand years apart. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Article fails WP:GNG, the non-primary sources do not provide anything more than passing mentions, and are mostly used to source a list of appearances in various Dungeons and Dragons media. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kepp oder properly merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters or Centaurs in popular culture, because secondary sources exist. Even if these are considered too little to support an article on its own, there is no benefit in loosing what content there is by outright deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Centaurs in popular culture. I see no evidence how this is more notable than the numerous other fictional centaurs listed there. Not a very active user (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more than your run-of-the-mill mythological centaur. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, and there is nothing to preserve, so there is no need to merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So far the discussion was if there is enough treatment in secondary sources for the subject to be notable on its own. But as there is content based on primary and reliable secondary sources, how can there be nothing to preserve? Daranios (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If these reliable secondary sources do not actually state anything other than in-universe information, "This monster appeared in this work" and other variants of passing mentions they do not create information that is necessary to preserve. I mean, the information that the Centaur appeared in Tall Tales of the Wee Folk is not going to contribute anything to any other article, so there is no reason to merge it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So you mean an article like Centaurs in popular culture should not exist on Wikipedia? Daranios (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Usual variety Dnd fancruft failing GNG etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.