Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golem (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 redirect to Golem.  Sandstein  09:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Golem (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing that shows that the D&D golem is notable, although golems in general definitely are. Gamecruft that is mostly WP:PRIMARY sourced and FANDOM-level content. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. The D&D golem is only notable within game guides and there is no notability for an article of its own. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails to establish notability. No need to retain content. TTN (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Research first before declaring "it's not notable" - A quick "Google Books" search found at least one non-game-genre reference to the use of golems in Dungeons and Dragons. Granted, it's not WP:SIGCOV but if a quick search can find that, a more detailed search can probably find what is needed. I'll post to the article talk page shortly.  As a compromise, redirect to something like List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters so the page history isn't lost.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As it is, there is nothing, basically nothing in the article that proves notability, and I could not find anything significant with a WP:BEFORE. But if you have actually found substantial evidence of notability please do share, as long as it's not WP:TRIVIAL and/or WP:PRIMARY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Without spending much time, I have found 3 non-primary, albeit trivial mentions in books. At least one is from an academic press.  I'll keep looking.  As I mentioned on the article talk page, if there are many - dozens or hundreds - of independent writers bothering to mention this and the authors are not all "fan boys/girls at heart" it makes you wonder why they would bother to mention it if the topic were not notable.  Three does not three dozen make, I will keep looking.  This AFD is new.  Hopefully others who are following the relevant "lists of discussions" at the top of this AFD will also do some research.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although it is hard to prove that no sources exist, I did search, and here is the problem: the term Golem exists and is notable, and has a page, and it is very hard to find any mention of golems that speak specifically of D&D golems that are not part of the game system - because, after all, that is the distinguishing feature of this page. What makes this page different from Golem is that this page is not about the concept of a golem, or golems in literature in general. Instead, this is a page about the golem as described in the D&D gameguide. As per Zxcvbnm, if you can find sources, that is great, but it seems unlikely. --Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to draft pending further research. BD2412  T 05:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can live with this as an alternative to "delete" if research stalls out before this is closed. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Golems are certainly notable, as the story is one of the most well-known in Jewish folklore, and they have been used in a multitude of different types of fiction for a long time. That said, there is absolutely nothing indicating why the D&D specific version of the creature is notable enough to either sustain its own article, or bother to be mentioned in another.  Additionally, as there is no content in this article that is not just in-universe game information, there is nothing that needs to be preserved or merged elsewhere.  As mentioned above, the only coverage in non-game books and non-game guides is trivial.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Golem in case no more substantial sources are found - the entry there is still lacking, compared to what secondary and primary sources can deliver. Move to draft is also fine with me.
 * Can anyone say if the sources by Picard D. Laurent are legitimate? Are they associated/independent?
 * Daranios (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I copy the secondary sources additionally found so far from Talk:Golem (Dungeons & Dragons) for ease of reference and to show that more secondary sources indeed exist. Daranios (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mere mention. p. 44 snippet
 * Comment: Mere mention. p. 44 snippet


 * Comment: Mere mention. p. 4
 * Comment: Mere mention. p. 4


 * Comment: Mere mention. ABC-CLIO is an academic publisher. p. 393
 * Comment: Mere mention. ABC-CLIO is an academic publisher. p. 393


 * The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters has a short bit about the creative origin of the D&D flesh golem on p. 193.
 * Those really are all extremely trivial mentions. They in no way constitute significant coverage. They simply affirm what is already established by the very name of the creature, lacking actual commentary. TTN (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a bunch of single-sentence mentions, which in most cases are just composed of examples of things named "Golem", are not signifigant coverage. The fact that there are a bunch of extremely trivial mentions does not constitute actual notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Golem. Right now there is nothing to merge, but sources noted just above would be sufficient to create a sentence, or maybe even a short paragraph in the general golem article linked popculture section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Golem per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 8 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.