Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (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 no consensus. Much as with Articles for deletion/Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons), disagreement about the quality of the sources. Likewise, no agreement on whether a merge to Goblin is warranted, a discussion better suited for talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable race that fails WP:GNG. The article is sourced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources and reads like a WP:GAMEGUIDE. There are only passing mentions of D&D goblins in secondary sources, enough for a mention in Goblin perhaps, but not for a full article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete/Weak Redirect to Goblin. Like many of the D&D versions of super-common fictional creatures adapted for the game, there is very little in reliable, secondary sources that would indicate independent notability for the D&D specific versions.  There are plenty of brief mentions, but they do little more than establish that they exist in the game.  The sources in the article currently are largely just game books and non-reliable sources, with the only non D&D book being used being the "For Dummies" book which, as established in previous AFDs, was written by then-current employees of Wizards of the Coast.  As goblins are such an ubiquitously common concept in folklore and fiction, I really don't see the D&D version meriting a specific mention in the main Goblin article.  But as they are already mentioned there, I suppose I would not be totally opposed to a Redirect.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the monster manual. There is no notable coverage of the subject in secondary sources. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Goblin per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Goblin. There is substantial coverage, at least, in the independent source, Keith Ammann, The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters (Simon & Schuster, 2019), p. 15–23. I believe that we are at the end of the low-hanging fruit of one-off and non-notable subjects in D&D. BD2412  T 01:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its been mentioned in previous AFDs, but the book The Monsters Know What They're Doing is basically just a game guide. It isn't actual coverage of the creature in non-game terms, it is literally a "how-to" for how they function in-game and how DMs can utilize them.  The pages you cite, for example, are nothing more than a straight guide for how Goblins work in the game.  It is basically the equivalent of a strategy guide published for a video game - typically not something that can be used to establish notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy in Wikipedia that I know of or that has been pointed out to me that excludes a third-party source by a reputable publisher from satisfying WP:GNG for being a "game guide". BD2412  T 03:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge: There is treatment of varying length in several secondary sources, the ones in the article plus the The Monsters Know What They're Doing. For all disagreement about the weight of certain sources, all criticism saying there is not even anything to merge has ignored the solid secondary sources  The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, which talks not only about the creative origin of D&D's goblins, but also the influence they had within the fantasy game genre. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Current coverage is very trivial. The above-mentioned source is already in the target article. TTN (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very extensive discussion in The Monsters Know What They're Doing. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Goblin. The Monsters Know What They're Doing is a game-guide, meaning that it cannot contribute to GNG since any information it provides would fail WP:GAMEGUIDE. The Ashgate source is only one source, which is not enough to pass GNG, and it is already present at the redirect target, making a merge unnecessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow at all. There's nothing in in the GNG or RS guidelines that exclude game guides (as far as I can see) - and any sensible approach is going to recognise that there are game guides and game guides (The Oxford Companion to Hamlet is hardly equivalent to Sparknotes). And there's no reason to believe that any information taken from a game guide will turn the article into a game guide - WP:NOT is a style guideline, not a guideline about the kinds of sources we can use. Equally, an article doesn't violate NPOV merely because it cites a partisan broadsheet. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference to citing a guide within an article and using that guide to establish notability. Since a gameguide can by definition not provide any information that passes the relevant guideline, it is useless for establishing notability, even if it could be used within an article. In the same way, we do not create articles solely based off of partisan broadsheets even though they can be cited within an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At best you've missed the point, at worst you're wrong. Please show me the relevant part of the general notability guideline or our guideline on reliable sources (or, if you like, some other policy or guideline) that supports your claim that Since a gameguide can by definition not provide any information that passes the relevant guideline, it is useless for establishing notability. This is precisely the assumption I'm questioning when I said There's nothing in in the GNG or RS guidelines that exclude game guides (as far as I can see) - and any sensible approach is going to recognise that there are game guides and game guides (The Oxford Companion to Hamlet is hardly equivalent to Sparknotes). Meanwhile, your claim that we do not create articles solely based off of partisan broadsheets even though they can be cited within an article sounds very questionable. Say I was writing an article about a conservative organisation, and the only sources I had were some in-depth articles in The Telegraph and The Times; are you really going to say that I have not proven that the organisation is notable, even though I am citing decent articles in decent newspapers, just because the newspapers I'm citing are conservative-leaning? I am not convinced that your view of the relationship between our guidelines on reliable sources, style, and notability is supported by what the guidelines actually say. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an unfair characterization of The Monsters Know What They're Doing. There are some practical elements relating to Dungeons and Dragons but there is plenty of philosophical, cultural, and social analysis.  For example, the discussion of Fomorians as the "evil equals ugly" trope on page 265. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. WP:NEXIST for conservative Wikipedian (although I would argue that the article as is passes GNG but would benefit from additional editing.).  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:04, 30 March 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.