Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant frog (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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). Overall consensus is for merging. North America1000 10:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Giant frog (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a giant frog. It's not an imaginative monster, and further it does not meet the general notability guideline. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why you feel that way, ? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Monsters don't have to be imaginative. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also assert that it doesn't meet the general notability guideline,, because there are no reliable, independent sources about giant frogs in D&D. I said "not imaginative" to highlight that this is no beholder or mind flayer, it's not a monster that was a unique idea. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. I vaguely recall that D&D had a large number of "giant" mundane animals as monsters, so perhaps we could put all of those together in a list-type article of Giant animals in Dungeons & Dragons, or the like. bd2412  T 13:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with that, actually. Giant animals as a whole show up fairly often in D&D even if individual ones don't meet the notability guidelines. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Mergeing this and other "giant whatever" monsters into a combined article seems like a reasonable solution. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), and there is only room for a single sentence about this monster in this article, which lists fourteen "giant" monsters (none of which have their own article), so essentially we are deleting this article, unless and  would like to immediately start the "giant" article they talked about (if it isn't underway by the time this article gets deleted, there will be no place to merge and so it must merge to the list article instead). Prhartcom (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also be cool with merging it to the existing list. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tragically, it is hard to find sources to tie together an article on the use of gigantism in D&D. The best thing I found was Stupid Monsters someone was paid to make, which says "Dungeons and Dragons is also filled with creatures that are monstrous versions of normal animals. From fiendish weasels to dire sloths, most of the animal kingdom is covered."  bd2412  T 02:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge as no serious needs for deletion but also not independently notable. SwisterTwister   talk  22:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge, no coverage by reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED, Giant frog needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:07, 26 April 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.