Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fey (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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 16:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Fey (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't have WP:SECONDARY SOURCE material— it consists almost exclusively of primary sources (i.e., in publications and game modules where the creature happens to appear), not to places where the creatures are a topic of discussion in and of themselves. It looks like this may be a chronic problem with many of the articles on monsters from the D&D gaming universe which have been added to Wikipedia. These articles require references to reliable independent secondary sources in order to be retained. This one doesn't appear to meet that threshold (it doesn't matter how many times a brownie appears in a story— he isn't notable until someone discusses that fact independent of the appearance). KDS 4444 Talk  15:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Citing primary sources is not a reason for deletion. Notability in this case is dependent on the existence of reliable independent sources. Google Books suggests there are plenty . --Michig (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Google Books is suggesting is that there are lots of independent sources about D&D that mention this character. And while an exclusive reflist of primary sources isn't automatically grounds for deletion, it would seem that all of these sources are not only primary, but from the game literature itself, which is a very big problem, as you cannot derive notability from somethings own source material. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - 58 of the sources are from TSR, and 20 are from Wizards of the Coast. Those can be discounted as primary sources, but that leaves 15 other sources to consider. —Torchiest talkedits 19:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Torchiest's comments. BOZ (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep While individual creature types mentioned within this combined article may not be notable, this article is a merged combination of a large host of individual articles, which has more than adequate combined sourcing to meet GNG. The comments above that refer to this article as if it depicted a single creature type, rather than a set of related creatures, call into question whether those posting such !votes even bothered reading the article, let alone understanding its importance. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Torchiest. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough sources to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2016 (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.