Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construct (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Construct (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list of Dungeons & Dragons constructs seems to fail WP:LISTN, as no non-primary reliable sources discuss D&D constructs as a group. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it contains no real-world context. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are no sources to indicate that this fictional creature type has any kind of notability. The sources being used in the current article are all primary, and searching for additional sources only come up with trivial mentions, non-reliable, or non-independent sources.  Only one of the blue linked entries actually leads to an actual independent article, so it also fails as a navigational tool.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - We've previously established that Wizards of the Coast is not RS due to a tendency to fictionalize and exaggerate information about itself, even information of the most basic variety and even about its own fiction products. The entire article is pretty much sourced to Wizards of the Coast publications, ergo, we have no RS that prove that this exists in fiction (a remarkable and mind-bending Catch 22). Therefore, due to a total absence of RS, delete is necessary. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just the fact that its only sourced to official products would be enough to fail the WP:GNG, due to the utter lack of independence. I'm not sure if this argument that they can't be considered reliable sources regarding whether their own fictional topics exist is necessary.  Or makes any sense.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh... Am I missing something? Discounting a reliable source based on that small discussion seems like a pretty large leap to reach that conclusion.  There may be more, but only pointing to that section is definitely not enough explaining to discount something in my eyes without further context. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:22, 1 February 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.