Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarf (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. There's strong consensus here not to delete. Some people feel this should be merged to Dwarf (mythology) (or possibly somewhere else), but that discussion can continue on the talk pages if needed. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite being a Good Article, I am not finding that this article passes WP:GNG. Almost all sources are WP:PRIMARY, and the only secondary sources are not talking about D&D dwarves but ones from LOTR. While well-written, it is Wikia/FANDOM material that doesn't assert notability or have a reason to be separate from Dwarf. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Plenty of sources to show notability, including but not limited to two listed in the bibliography as well as a scattering of other non-primary sources. This is one of the primary, original races in D&D. The article even points out it was one of the first alternate races ever played in the game's history. It's true the article uses primary sources, but it's notable outside of them. If anything, this should have been discussed on the article's talk page or brought up for WP:GAR at most. —Torchiest talkedits 05:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please expand upon where these sources discuss the Dwarf in detail, and specifically the D&D version rather than the Lord of the Rings version? They largely (entirely?) seem to be talking about dwarves in LOTR. Dwarves are mentioned in passing in the first book of the bibliography, the second is WP:PRIMARY, the third is about LOTR. One of the first alternate races in D&D may be important to fans, but doesn't indicate notability as an article (unless it's D&D Wiki).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear ZXCVBNM, with "They largely (entirely?) seem to be talking about dwarves in LOTR" are you referring to the secondary sources already present in the article? I have started looking through these, and found that those by Tresca and Schick are directly referring to D&D, while Guerra already has "Dungeons & Dragons" in the title. I can't look into Bowman, but as it is about role-playing games, and LOTR is a novel, it can hardly be only about LOTR. So it might be easier if you could point the sources out that you meant. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was more talking about WP:SIGCOV than just any coverage. There are definitely secondary sources that cover D&D Dwarves there. Whether it qualifies as significant is a different matter.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I wonder if we should create a general article "Dwarves in fantasy" to cover them in D&D, LOTR, Atemis Fowl, the works of C. S. Lewis etc. I think a general article discussing the various similarities and differences between these dwarfs in fantasy would be good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Light Merge to Dwarf (mythology) - Most of the reliably sourced information here is actually on the mythological origins of Dwarves, or on the influence of Tolkien's interpretation of them, rather than anything in-depth on the D&D version in specific. For example, that first source in the article, by Tresca, actually has very little content on the D&D-specific version of dwarves - three sentences, in fact, one of which is to merely to state that Dwarves in D&D can be beardless.  That really seems to be the case in most reliable, secondary sources that aren't just in-game information - small mentions of the D&D versions as part of a wider discussion on the interpretation of dwarves in fiction.  That said, that is enough that they should certainly be discussed in the appropriate place in the main article on Dwarves.  They are already mentioned there, but a bit of expansion would probably be fine.  In addition, I agree with John Pack Lambert above that an article on the overall concept of dwarves in fiction would also be a good place where the information could be presented.  Rorshacma (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or at worst merge to Dwarf (mythology) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are a lot of good sources here. I think Ilan Mitchell-Smith's "Racial Determinism and the Interlocking Economics of Power and Violence in Dungeons & Dragons" is an academic work that covers dwarves as well as other D&D races, and it's directly quoted in the article. Same for Sarah Lynne Bowman's "Role-Playing as Alteration of Identity" and Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games. These are clearly about the D&D dwarves, and not about Lord of the Rings. This is rightly a Good Article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: If more secondary sources could be found, that would always be good, but as already mentioned there are fine secondary sources treating this topic in the article. Daranios (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a perfectly fine article with acceptable sources. I think by nominating articles like this for deletion we are just making more work for ourselves. We are here to create good articles after all, which this literally is. Rhino131 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A few sentences of mention in anything that isn't a D&D guide is not what I'd call "acceptable" sources. It's trivial coverage.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - While both merge somewhere or a move might be a suitable thing to do, those deserve discussion outside of AfD. The question for AfD is whether this subject is notable for a page. I find the case somewhat marginal. Most D&D monsters are not notable for their own pages per WP:GAMEGUIDE, and at best should be merely mentioned on other pages. There is also a case that this article could be merged with an article about D&D or an article about dwarves in fantasy, but as it is not obvious which of these it should merge with, I do not propose that. As to notability, this subject goes some way beyond the usual sourcing of the player guides. There are many sources listed, and although the Gygax sources are primary, the TSR sources could be considered game guides, the tweets are in no way WP:RS etc., there are a few sources that stand out, such as this one. I had a quick read of the source and it does treat the subject of dwarves, although it is not extensive. Yet it is not just player guide either. The fact is that the Dwarves of D&D clearly are a core element and to some extent are independently notable. Although the case is marginal, I don't think this should be deleted. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge there is not enough sourcing about this topic to justify keeping a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. As far as I can tell, there are only two non-primary / independent sources given. One is Tresca but it mentions dwarves in DnD only in passing in a single sentence. Second is Mitchell-Smith  but that again doesn't discuss DnD dwarves in detail, they are just mentioned in passing. At best, content referenced to those two sources can be merged to Dwarf_(mythology). It is plausible that we need a stand-alone article about the modern representation of dwarves in fantasy fiction and games, which is what those two academic sources touch upon. But the concept of dwarf in DnD is 99% fancruft and fails NFICTION/GNG. PS. I want to stress that all the sources mentioned here may be relevant to the concept of dwarves in modern fiction, bit they don't discuss DnD sources in any detail. This is just minute fancruft or a possibly notable parent topic that's missing (Dwarf (fantasy)).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: From the limited parts I can access at the moment, Tresca has two paragraphs, not one sentence, on pages 31/32, and something more on p. 36 directly to dwarves in D&D (and of course more about dwarves in fantasy that also applies to D&D). Daranios (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the others. FrankTobia (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Dungeons and Dragons media has served as a baseline for a lot of fantasy media since its inception. Nominating all of these D&D pages seems like a scorched earth policy to me. Deleting the page for Dwarves seems especially egregious because Dwarves in D&D are one of the more well-known and culturally impactful races. Waxworker (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lord of the Rings dwarves, which the D&D ones are based on, are the culturally impactful race. There is nothing particularly notable about the D&D dwarves - it feels like you are confusing the two.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * keep Iconic.  Sourced. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dwarf (mythology), I checked out the tresca source, and the section on pg 36 referred to by Daranios is primarily about Gnomes, not dwarves, though the bit on page 32 contains I think contains just enough information to count towards a GNG pass, although a large part of that paragraph is devoted to Tolkien’s dwarves. The Mitchell-Smith source contains only passing mentions on D&D dwarves, meaning that this article does not pass GNG. As there is one good source, this should definitely be merged to the Dwarf article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Previously I BADNACed it as a keep but after a ping from I am convinced that this is a BADNAC, now I recommend a relist for more discussion to generate consensus. Since I have involved, I am refraining from relisting it myself  xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people seem drawn between keeping or merging. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discussed in sufficient detail, at least, in the third-party source, Michael J. Tresca, The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games (McFarland & Co., 2011), p. 31-35. BD2412  T 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as there are legitimate third party sources (not just game guides or works by WOTC/TSR) then I think this article works as a standalone article. It is not the same as the other articles about individual species of DND creature that were sourced only to DND source books and fansites. Michepman (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - I feel like much of the information is packaged improperly, giving weight to ideas that are not uniquely D&D related. There are certainly some mentions unique to D&D, but many that are not. It's definitely well-written, but I'm not sure I would call it well-sourced. TTN (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Dwarf mythology article. We need to focus more on broad concepts than work on looking too deeply on their individualized manifestations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second here. You already have a delete vote from the 15th which is still active.  Do you mean to strike your initial vote?  --Super Goku V (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The apparent consensus here is to keep the article as it is with only three delete votes with two of them also advocating for a merger. If needed, a formal merge discussion should be held on Talk:Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) to ensure that proper consensus is held.  --Super Goku V (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. The Tresca source is significant. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons mentioned by Sirfurboy. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:39, 29 March 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.