Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fey (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 List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters.  MBisanz  talk 12:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

No evidence of real world significance, analysis, or such. Pure PLOT. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Formatted like a list, mostly, through fails WP:LISTN too (and is not, technically, a list anyway). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:01, 16 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  02:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep based on sources found during AFD, or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Fails WP:GNG. There's really little reason to retain such information. TTN (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are a lot of different giants, and while I doubt any of them are independently notable, there are lots of little bits that could be pulled together about them, and there are no doubt a few things to be said about giants in general (there are some interesting, if brief, comments in this article, for example, some hits about sexuality...). Keeping these higher level articles seems like a decent compromise between keeping and deleting articles about D&D monsters. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is a compromise for collecting many creatures and not having them have their own article. And there are secondary sources, in addition to the one already mentioned by Josh Milburn, either for the topic as a whole or individual creatures: Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, Literary Sources of D&D, The Monsters Know What They're Doing, The most underrated monsters of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, rpg.net. Some appeared in (or are derived from) other publishers, at least one has spilled over into other media. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources to discuss the monsters as a group, not the Fey specifically. – sgeureka t•c 07:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, that the sources only discuss monsters in D&D in general, not addressing fey specifically? I think this is not correct: While the source do talk about monsters in general, they also each refer to fey specifically in some way: ...for Dummies to fey as a group, Ashgate Encyclpedia to the origins of the nymph and satyr, Literary Sources of D&D to the origins of many real-world mythology based fey (brownie, satyr, nymph, nixie,...), The Monsters Know What They're Doing to both fey as a group and many individual races, The monst underrated monsters features the quickling, rpg.net talks about some fey as forest dwellers, io9 tells us the D&D nymph appeared in Futurama, the Concentric article talks briefly about both fey as a group and the satyr. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even deemed notable enough to be mentioned in Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Listing all Fey submonsters appears to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE. – sgeureka t•c 07:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that fey are not mentioned in Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons proves nothing except that that article could still use a lot of work (it does not even address the concept of creature types at all yet). I invite you to improve it - there certainly are lots of secondary sources to do that out there. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If even fans don't say it's notable (in the MiD&D article), it's a fair wager to assume it's not notable. I'll leave the improvement of D&D articles to those who actually care about it. – sgeureka t•c 11:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:ISNOT (specifically a game guide).  Onel 5969  TT me 19:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - In the end, none of the proposed sources actually discuss the concept of Fey creatures in D&D in any depth. Several of the sources brought here, I would argue, would not count as reliable secondary sources, and those that are do nothing but give brief mentions of them as a thing that exists.  There is not actually anything in them that would allow the creation of an article that would be able to pass the WP:GNG.  It isn't just the number of mentions in sources that grants notability, it is the actual content within those sources, and in this case, that content is sorely lacking.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable D&D cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a short section discussing the concept of the fey in the game as a group based on the known secondary sources. Please take that into account for the deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that does help detail the concept. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They seem to be trivial mentions, simply describing the in-universe role without any particular commentary to make them more than trivial mentions. Rather than an exploration on seeing if the topic is notable, it seems more like an attempt to find anything that could possibly be used to keep the article in existence despite its flaws. TTN (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really change much, as its just using the same sources to just rearrange the same information in a different way. That does not actually add notability to the concept.  As my main argument in this AFD was the extremely brief discussions of them in the known secondary sources, just using the same sources in a new paragraph doesn't help pass the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have missed an existing sentence there. I have rephrased to avoid presenting the same information twice. That means there already was information about the concept of fey in the article. What's still new is the creative origin, evaluation about what is seen as special about the fey, and evaluation of their use in the game, all of which is meta and cannot be found directly in the primary sources. If you are talking purely about quantity, at least The Monsters Know What They're Doing talks about fey for a number of pages. (Only about two thirds of a page about the fey as a group, but as I said in the beginning, this page also is the merging point of individual creature entries not deemed noteworthy on their own.) Daranios (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good to try to improve articles, but I am afraid this is way too little to make me change my mind and withdraw this nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:14, 27 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.