Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Githyanki (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 delete.  Sandstein  20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Githyanki
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. The single reception source is a trivial gameplay blurb that doesn't even really belong in the article. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability beyond that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Monster Manual cruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or, failing that, merge to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters: Aside from two minor mentions in secondary sources already present in the article, the Arcane article does not dwell long on the githyanki, but provides analysis of a game element and its usefulness, the absence of which is usually brought forth as a an argument for deletion. As for length, The Monsters Know What They're Doing does some three pages on the githyanki. If that's not deemed enough for keeping the article, it should be merged and redirected because loosing the information present by deletion has no benefits, while it can improve the merge target. Daranios (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or draftify pending improvement. BD2412  T 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Fiend Folio. Minor mentions do not count towards GNG, and it has been pretty well established that The Monsters Know What They're Doing is useless for notability purposes. I am not sure about the status of Arcane, but one source is not enough to pass GNG in any case. The Fiend Folio article contains a sentence of the Githyanki, and is a better target than the alternative. As with other D&D articles, it should be deleted before redirecting to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Devonian Wombat! Where and on what basis has it been "pretty well established that The Monsters Know What They're Doing is useless for notability purposes"? Who get's to decide such a thing permanently? I guess one can argue about the merits of the content for the githyanki entry in this book, but to discount the book as a whole is quite a different matter. Cool username, by the way. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The coverage in secondary sources is either trivial, or, as in the case of the suggested The Monsters Know What They're Doing, is nothing more than a literal game guide about how to use them in-game.  There is no coverage in reliable, secondary sources that actually indicate real world notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the creative origin or an evaluation if a game element is a good game element is trivial. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 24 February 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.