Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant (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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus (and more support for keeping the article) after extended time for discussion. I would suggest that a better approach than scattershot deletion or nomination for deletion of articles in this area would be having one central top-down discussion of what should be included, and what should be merged or discarded, with clearly defined parameters of sourcing and importance. BD2412 T 03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

No evidence of real world significance, analysis, or such. Pure PLOT+list of media appearances (changes between D&D editions). Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:02, 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  02:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found, or at worst 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)


 * 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). Keeping these higher level articles seems like a decent compromise between keeping and deleting articles about D&D monsters. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep because secondary source exist. Most are not yet worked into the article, but we are supposed to judge it by its potential, not current state: Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193, Literary Sources of D&D, The Monsters Know What They're Doing, p. 149-153, Giants. With major adventures dealing with giants (Against the Giants, Storm King's Thunder) I also expect there is some treatment in magazines, but cannot say myself. D&D's giants have also been used by third party publishers. Daranios (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of those provide significant coverage on the topic? It seems to be simply in-universe descriptions lacking real world commentary. TTN (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the mentioned sources contains solely in-universe description, some do partially. Their depth of coverage varies. Literary Sources of D&D and especially The Ashgate Encyclopedia give creative origins. ..for Dummies evaluates the role in the game, and talks about their use in the game. The Monsters Know What They're Doing does the latter more extensively. Giants, as far as I can tell, gives us where giants appear in popular culture, and tells us that D&D is one of those places. Daranios (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those sources discusses D&D Giants in detail, at best they get a passing nod (mention). For example The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, which you cite as particularly relevant, doesn't seem to mention D&D at all. Please note we are discussing the deletion of the article on Giants in D&D, not on giants in general (which, I'll note, desperately needs 'in popular fiction' section). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I kind of doubt I can fullfill your wishes for volume, but The Ashgate Encyclopedia does have a separate section about D&D: Please look at page 193 for giants in that context. If you are looking for quantity, The Monsters Know What They're Doing discusses giants in D&D for a number of pages, starting at p. 249, plus some general analysis at p. 8. Daranios (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TTN as failing GNG. No sources have been provided by anyone besides Daranios, and those are just passing mentions or about giants in general, not from D&D. I do not object to the creation of a Giants in popular culture page if one wants to create one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:12, 29 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.