Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters


 * 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 technical deletion. There is a very narrow consensus for deletion of the article as it stands. However, there is likely salvageable material from the article, so I am closing this as a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, so that some content relevant to that article may be retrieved. I note that the redirect target is short on discussion of the interplay of different editions within the genre. bd2412 T 02:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The items in the list are not put in context with secondary sources. List of minor monsters sourced entirely to the Monster Manual. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - There may be justification for a single list on notable creatures, but this is just WP:GAMEGUIDE material. TTN (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in official D&D books. It is a drop-down list as a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. It was a compromise as some monsters had some independent notability. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that some monsters are notable. However, this is clearly a list of all monsters from 1st Edition, therefore it establishes itself as a directory, not an encyclopedic list. It fails to differentiate between notable and non-notable monsters, and therefore requires a total rewrite. A List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters that only features notable creatures would make sense, this is pure fancruft/gameguide content that does not have relevance to non-fans.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cas Liber, and this list does have several independent reliable sources. Any other issues could be fixed through editing. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the list, there are 3 possibly independent sources. Two of them are not available online. The third, which gives a little hint that D&D monsters might be notable as a group, does so so in such fashion as to support the notability of list of D&D monsters, not index of D&D 1st edition monsters. The three sources I see are:
 * Two reviews published in White Dwarf
 * If someone has a good idea where to look for old copies of White Dwarf and can actually look up the two reviews cited (currently sources 2 and 16 in the article), that would help immensely. Also, if somebody has access to Lexikon der Zauberwelten and can explain what it actually says about D&D, that would also be awesome. Rockphed (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold my breath for anyone to find anything about that Lexikon. I have my doubts about White Dwarf and its independence and reliability as well--this is all we have. What we are finding here is for how long Wikipedia has been a playground for building walled gardens of this kind of boy game. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone has a good idea where to look for old copies of White Dwarf and can actually look up the two reviews cited (currently sources 2 and 16 in the article), that would help immensely. Also, if somebody has access to Lexikon der Zauberwelten and can explain what it actually says about D&D, that would also be awesome. Rockphed (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold my breath for anyone to find anything about that Lexikon. I have my doubts about White Dwarf and its independence and reliability as well--this is all we have. What we are finding here is for how long Wikipedia has been a playground for building walled gardens of this kind of boy game. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not in any way indiscriminate as claimed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and the same arguments brought up in the other D&D Edition monsters lists at AFD. The very few non-primary sources included here would help support a singular article or list on the topic of Dungeons and Dragons monsters, discussing and listing the handful of actually notable creatures.  They do not, however, support any notability for this specific grouping.  And they also certainly do not justify this massive list which is nothing more than a game guide.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of blue links there leading to the articles of these monsters of this type from this series. Unless you erase all of those other articles, this is a valid list article.   D r e a m Focus  21:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A large portion of those links are to other lists, or to mythological creatures unrelated to the game. That is not a compelling reason to keep the list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some have the same name as a creature of myth but in their links it has (Dungeons & Dragons) showing its a different article. Clicking through the list for a while I see ample articles specifically for Dungeons % Dragons monsters to justify a list article.   D r e a m Focus  11:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And out of all of them, how many do you actually think deserve articles? You're trying to justify a unnecessary list with articles that don't even hold up to the standards of the GNG in the first place. TTN (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like Zxcvbnm said, a single list of D&D monsters, with the notability of the monsters clearly established by reliable, secondary sources would be useful and worth of having. Separate lists of D&D monsters for every edition of the game listing every single monster from the game, notable or not, is just a game guide, and only useful for a small portion of the readers. Not a very active user (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the same people suggesting we construct this hypothetical list, should be aware that would require using all the independently-sourced chunks from this list which the same people are keen on deleting. BOZ (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources should also be in the individual articles on the notable creatures. Only creatures notable enough for an article that could survive AfD should be on the new list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not true - many lists have non-notable members on them, whether they be cast lists for films or whatever Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With a list of generic monsters, the criteria for inclusion is a slippery slope, if one is allowed, then people will assume that others are allowed no matter how slipshod their notability is. The easiest way to ensure notability, is to require each monster to be independently notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal limit would be things with at least 1 reliable, independent, significant source could go on the list while things with more than that could support their own article. Why I am for deleting these lists as currently written is that the individual items are currently sourced to primary sources and there aren't sources to establish the notability of creatures for any individual edition of D&D. Rockphed (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its also important to note that the reason why there can be lists that include non-notable individual entries is because WP:LISTN states that stand alone lists meet the notability requirements if independent reliable sources discuss the grouping as a group. So, you can have a list of, using your example, cast members of a film that includes non-notable members if there are reliable sources that discuss the cast members of that film as a group.  In this case however, there are not, as far as I have found or have been provided, any independent reliable sources that discuss "AD&D 1st Edition Monsters" in specific as a group.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per my arguments in Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (2nd nomination). Lists of all somethings from something is not notable unless it passes NFICTION/NLIST. Ditto for list of all spells, weapons, or magical items from D&D, we shouldn't have such compilations of trivia. That stuff belongs on D&D wikia where it should be transwikid if it hasn't been already. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cas Liber. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nom that it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Perfectly valid list relating to a major element of a major game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not to mention cruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. That some of the factoids in the article are cited doesn't mean we should have a list of gamecruftthings this long. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2019 (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.