Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (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 redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

News flash: D&D features dinos! They are monsters! You can kill them and get XP! Ugh. No evidence this passes GNG. Pure PLOT+publication history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, or failing that merge to either Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons or List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Despite the harsh criticism, there are secondary source judging that dinosaurs play a not-so-unimportant part in D&D. I have added one. So now we have a scientific book, an independent magazine and several non-affiliated internet sites. Dinosaurs were also used in third-party derivatives of D&D. Daranios (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Monsters Know What They're Doing is another secondary source. Daranios (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which page is relevant here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That should be pages 530-533, with the Introduction, pages XIII-XIV, explaining how real-world ideas flowed into the book. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The non-primary sources are just not sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. The ones present are either from non-reliable sites (such as fansites), or are extremely passing mentions that have no discussion about them outside of basically saying "dinosaurs are a type of monster in D&D".  For example, the book being used as a source, "Religions in play: games, rituals, and virtual worlds", sounds impressive, but actually looking into it shows that D&D dinosaurs are mentioned exactly one time, and in no other context aside from being included in a list of a bunch of other monsters.  The number of sources stuck onto a page doesn't mean that much if none of them actually provide any kind of in-depth coverage or analysis that would allow an article to be written that could pass the WP:GNG.  And quite frankly, none of the ones present, or can be found upon searches, do.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment about Religions in play: True enough, dinosaurs appear there only one time. As the quote shows the author does not, however, considers them any type of the myriad monsters in the game, but one of the basic ones. He uses them together with only two other groups, demons and fey, as comparison to demonstrate the importance of mythology-based monsters in the game. So in view of all sources together I stand by my opinion and curiously await extraneous judgement. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Being used as an example is a far cry from the GNG-required in-depth analysis. Sorry, but Rorshacma is right on spot, those sources are not very helpful, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cleanup and merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. There are not enough primary sources on the topic for it to merit its own article. DA1312 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A dinosaur is a dinosaur, the way they are used in D&D does not merit its own article. GNG fail.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial descriptions do not make an article suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia has no duty to cover every minute facet of D&D so retention is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, which says it only lists notable monsters, but doesn't even mention dinosaurs?! Not a good case for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 09:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG, uses mostly primary sources, and even the non-primary sources are merely brief mentions that are also plot summaries. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:13, 20 December 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.