Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character class (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 keep. Lourdes 05:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely a game guide about how to play D&D. Unencyclopedic, because Wikipedia is not supposed to host game guide content. Doesn't demonstrate independent notability outside of that, as a minor aspect of a single role playing game (not to be confused with Character class which is more broad concept). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge the independently-sourced parts to Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinoff from Dungeons & Dragons gameplay, because it would be far too long to cover decades of classes without distracting the flow entirely.  D&D is an exceptionally long-running and influential game, so this level of coverage is appropriate even if tilted to primary sources.  This isn't the equivalent of fancruft of a single video game; this is closer to an entire cultural industry, akin to Category:Chess openings if a single company owned chess.  SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per plenty of focused coverage on the concept over the years it looks like, and it also helps maintains a necessary split from the D&D page. JamieWhat (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per SnowFire, and as an aspect of the game commented on beyond being a game mechanics aspect but as a pop culture topic. oknazevad (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have read over the Keep votes so far, but I am unable to discern any policy based reason for keeping the article. They all seem to be WP:ITSPOPULAR arguments phrased in different ways. The article does say that "Dungeons & Dragons was the first game to introduce the usage of character classes to role-playing", but this article goes far beyond that to list the character classes in every single edition of D&D, information that wouldn't be useful to non-fans.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Not of interest to non-fans" isn't policy based reasoning. 1994 Montreal Expos season is probably not of much interest to people who don't care about baseball, (90568) 2004 GV9 is not of interest to people who don't care about planetary objects, etc.  WP:GNG and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE control here: the better question to ask is are there reliable references, and there indeed are, just as there are for chess openings and advanced mathematics concepts and the like.  So...  no problem, it's a spin-off appendix to the above.  SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the last section of WP:GNG - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd call this page indiscriminate information, particularly a description of a creative work that lacks context in the form of "development, design, reception, significance, and influence".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * further " information that wouldn't be useful to non-fans", hi, i note that you have listed on your userpage a number of video games that you have created/edited that includes gameplay sections, just wondering why you included something that would be "information that wouldn't be useful to non-fans"? this afd appears to be leaning towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see some of the info is sourced to a UCP book. Depending on how much coverage there is in that book, that could easily pass GNG on its own. I'd also bet there's no shortage of sources like the io9.com site also in the references, although I'm not sure whether that counts as RS. It is a little annoying though that nearly everything in the article is sourced to the publishing company, perhaps some of this coverage is WP:UNDUE.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:58, 10 August 2019 (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.