Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobgoblin (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 delete. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged, but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. – sgeureka t•c 14:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * merge to hobgoblin - how the entity evolved from a little goblin to a big one is interesting and would make for a stronger parent article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The D&D specific version of the creature does not have any sort of coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG. There are plenty of results that establish that, yes, WP:ITEXISTS, but nothing that would support an independent article.  The only sources being used currently are game books and primary sources.  Merging to hobgoblin, per Cas Liber, could be possible, but given the utter lack of reliable sources, I would not recommend it.  It should probably be noted that the multitude of "Keep" votes above are entirely WP:JUSTAVOTE, and should be discounted appropriately, and I find it weird that so many people continue to try this tactic.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The hobgoblins of Dungeons & Dragons don't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources. I don't see why this page should be kept. Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a lack of secondary sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable article, complete fancruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:06, 21 January 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.