Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creature type


 * 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 no consensus to delete. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Creature type

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has insufficient content, real world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this creature type (or is that type of creature?) outside of the game rulebook from which these fictional creatures are derived. Gavin Collins 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination as written doesn't make sense, since this isn't a creature type, it's about the concept of creature types in D&D and a list of the different types that exist in the game.  This is the sort of thing that would be a section of the main article if we had infinitely big main articles, but since we don't, it makes a good supporting article. Pinball22 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - Would the main article be allowed to go into infinite detail about game mechanics? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing quite says "deletionist on a spree" more than this kind of error and a over reliance on cut and paste. Basically this set of deletions should be described as "Some fictional things I found that don't have references yet" Artw —Preceding comment was added at 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing says words of wisdom quite like this article: "A plant is a vegetable creature". However, without any sources, we don't know if it is a creature type, a type of creature or.... a creature type concept. In any case, I just don't see how this is a "good supporting article".--Gavin Collins 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Pinball. BOZ 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important element of the rules of D&D. Articles like this are split off from the main article in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Polaron | Talk 20:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pinball.--Robbstrd 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - to stop a snowball close and keep the discussion going. I gave up following AD&D after the heresy of Unearthed Arcana, so I'm not sure how important the "creature type" category is in the new 3.5th edition; but if this article is simply summarizing game mechanics, shouldn't it get transwikied off to a D&D wiki? Polaron has a point; but, the main D&D article doesn't go into so much detail about game mechanics that this subarticle would need any forking. The D&D article is about the real-world aspects of the game (description, explanation, popularity, past troubles, flagship status, pioneering aspects etc.). The minutiae of game mechanics isn't there. I'd suggest maybe Wikipedia's not meant to teach us how to play the game, but to tell us what it is. After all, the point of an article shouldn't be to summarize a company's gaming manuals, should it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish real world notability.  There is no real world context to this information  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep / Eventual Merge. While not a member, a glance at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons shows that they know that the various creature articles are a problem and need listification.  It seems that the preliminary work on listification has stalled for right now, but deleting the underlying material isn't going to help on that.  This article should eventually be merged into an entirely new framework for discussing creatures in Dungeons & Dragons, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline. SnowFire 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would not be concerned if this article gets deleted as the material is available on lots of fansites. There are no footnotes to verify the content anyway, so better to delete, rather than copy and paste suspect material. --Gavin Collins 09:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard of "It's available elsewhere" would delete all of Wikipedia... well, all of it except for original research, I suppose.  And the material actually is cited in the reference given.  I suppose you could ask for specific page numbers for each statement, but that's a standard that is only seen on some Featured Articles. SnowFire 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete listing the types of creatures in D&D is a job for the Monster Manual, not wikipedia. Even if enough encyclopedic content could be found, it would be better placed in a "types" section in an article about creatures in general. Percy Snoodle 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep so that the stub and start-class articles on specific creature types can be merged into it. Neon  Merlin  19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a gameguide. Ridernyc 11:14, 9 November 2007 (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.