Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd 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   keep.  Sandstein  17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't know where to begin. This fails WP:VGSCOPE as gameguide trivia. WP:GNG for lack of assertion of notability. WP:NOT for regurgitating the content of various sourcebooks, all the way down to a column for page number appearances -- it's as if all the tables of contents have been transcribed here. WP:IINFO also applies. --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC) --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gyowch.  I'm a long-time role-player; I own most of the books referenced in the article; heck, I actually find this information interesting--but I agree it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  As it happens, I'm actually working on creating my own wiki devoted entirely to role-playing games (haven't gone public with it yet because I want to get it a little more presentable first)--but to be honest, I wouldn't want this article in my wiki either.  In an RPG wiki, this information could be notable but would have to be presented better, but for Wikipedia, with its broader scope, I don't think it's notable enough to make the cut however it's presented. --Smeazel (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be gone! Good heavens. I'd say there's WP:LIST issues too, do we have WP:TRIVIA to whack them with? This is quite clearly the "Pokemon problem" gone mental. To have page numbers is the icing on the cake. Spellcasting - D-E-L-E-T-E doktorb wordsdeeds 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly improve the current list is not worth saving. DGG (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This is also just trivial information and listcruft/fancruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is one of a slew of articles under List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. I think all would be subject to deletion, no? WP:LIST violation. I added Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 09:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not only for my reasons at Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters but also for redundant redundancy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - whatever cleanup issues there are, I will try to resolve. Just walk me through it. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have started to work on adding in the sections that I have previously left blank to be filled in later. No idea how much time I'll have to devote to it, but hopefully I'm getting it to look less like a skeleton and more like how I originally intended the page to look. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - this article is the result of the deletion/redirection of a huge amount of material last year. It is not indiscriminate as the detail would be huge if it were. Anyone vaguely familiar with D&D is aware of the absolutely massive amount of monster-related information which was often discussed in independent magazines (not the Dragon) etc. It is also not a gameguide but a list - there is no 'how-to' here. OK, maybe we don't need pages. Anyway, article quality is no reason to delete. Not a Plot doesn't apply as it is a spinout list. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think anyone has argued for the deletion of the material on the grounds of article quality or of cleanup issues -- just that this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a compilation of summarized material from primary sources.  (Hence, I believe, the reference to WP:PLOT--it's not literally a plot summary, but it's very much the same kind of thing.)  I'm very familiar with D&D; I know how much monster-related information is out there; I'd even started compiling a database of similar information myself.  I realize how much work must have gone into this, and how much information it represents.  Unfortunately, none of that is a valid argument for keeping the article.  I like these articles--I even saved copies of them for my own reference in case they're deleted.  But unfortunately, I don't see any justification for keeping them under Wikipedia guidelines. --Smeazel (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK that's your opinion. I see it as a list which is a spinout of a larger article for size reasons, and hence, it is not essential for the commentary to follow. Most lists are simply that - lists, with the 3rd party information elsewhere, just look at lists of bird species of a given place etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've completely misread what I said. Where did I say anything about needing commentary?  Yes, I know Wikipedia contains lists, but that doesn't mean that every possible list is appropriate for Wikipedia.  As for its being a "spinoff of a larger article"--that "larger article" is also up for deletion (as you're apparently aware, since you commented on that AfD).  This list isn't up for deletion because it lacks commentary; it's up for deletion because the material doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability standards.  If anyone can show third-party reliable sources establishing such a list of monsters as notable, I could be persuaded to change my recommendation, but as it is, this just seems like a compilation of primary source material--going against the same principles as WP:PLOT and WP:VGSCOPE, if not literally violating those rules since it's about role-playing rather than about novels or video games. --Smeazel (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "lists" AFD was closed early as snowball keep. BOZ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant a larger article on D&D proper rather than the uber-list actually. Commentary/critique is involved in what NOTAPLOT is about. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the question of whether an article on D&D would qualify as commentary or critique on a list of monsters, where does WP:PLOT say anything about commentary or critique? Let me quote from WP:VGSCOPE--as I said, I know we're not talking about a video game here, but I think the principle is similar: "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry".  Is this list of monsters "essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry"?  Doesn't look like it.  I'm willing to be persuaded here; I like the article; but I'm going to need something to establish its notability outside the primary sources it's compiled from.  (Again, I'm a role-player myself; I own most of the books cited; but I'm not convinced this material meets Wikipedia notability standards.) --Smeazel (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I'd originally recommended "delete", but List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters just got snowball kept, and it would make no sense to keep that article and delete this one.  (See also comment below.) --Smeazel (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The monsters are an immensely significant part of this immensely significant game. This listing method is far, far preferable to the many individual articles that were here before. The article is not in a great shape, but the skeleton is there. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I haven't forgotten the barnstar you gave me for creating these lists in the first place. :) I'm just embarrased that I haven't done more to make the 2nd edition list more presentable, like the 3rd edition, 1st edition, and 1974-1976 lists. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned above, the article is currently just a skeleton - but as I understand it the intent is to flesh it out over time with the sort of information that used to be kept in individual monster articles. Contrasting it to Pokemon is a good example. Like what eventuated with Pokemon, the intent is to remove the individual monster articles (except those that are clearly notable and can be much more than a stub) and pull them together into a list. Given the extent of the project it will take time - there's a lot of monster articles to consolidate - but the result will be the removal of multiple individual non-notable works to be replaced with a more valuable List. - Bilby (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per J Milburn and Bilby and keeping in mind that with the amount of ink spilled over D&D some of the listed monsters are notable in their own right, along with D&D itself and therefore the list can be valuable in establishing the wider context of such. --Rindis (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 1st: I am for keeping this article as it is the place to merge all AD&D 2nd edition monsters for which notability could not be established in their own right.
 * 2nd: The proposed guideline Notability (toys and games) says:
 * It is likely that a toy or game is notable if:
 * The toy or game has been in production and commercially available for 20 years or more. This is definitly true for (A)D&D, and monsters have been at its core for most of it's existence.
 * But no one is proposing a deletion of the D&D game articles; it's this list of creatures. Notability of D&D is not inherited by the monsters that are part of it. And maybe even the monsters, as an overarching class/group are notable, but this excruciating 0.2MB table of names is unnecessary. --EEMIV (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd: When I as a user of wikipedia am thinking Someone told me something about a grippli, but I have no idea what that's supposed to be, I will be happy to get some answer from wikipedia (in the shortest possible way: It'a a monster from AD&D from that book, which is appropriate because of it's low notability), instead of none at all. But that is just an opinion, that may be in conflict with guidelines, important are 1st and 2nd. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's useful isn't a particularly compelling rationale to keep content. --EEMIV (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy, if not Snowball, Keep This article is clearly a work in progress to REDUCE the number of other articles on this subject. So it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since this is no where near a video game, WP:VGSCOPE does not apply. WP:GNG does not apply either given the 30+ year publication history of the game of which monsters are the most notable part.  And there is no plot or plot summary either here or the books they came from so there is no way that WP:NOT can apply either.  The article is in need of some more 3rd party refs. But currently this is a large project taken on by only a few people who are dedicating their own time to improve Wikipedia bad reducing the clutter and adding proper content. I would even argue that given the number of articles this project has reduced should be reason alone for this article to remain. Web Warlock (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously D&D isn't a video game or a novel, but since there are no explicit guidelines for listing elements from role-playing games, I think drawing an analogy with other media for which there are explicit guidelines may be valid. That being said, however, neither WP:VGSCOPE nor WP:NOT are absolute rules, and in the case of particularly significant games and books there are certainly cases where these rules are superseded (Bilby's mention of the Pokemon lists is very relevant here), and RPGs don't get more significant than D&D, so on reflection, I agree that my initial "delete" recommendation was unwarranted.  Sorry; I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 but haven't really been very active until recently, and in some ways I suppose I'm still learning the ropes; I will learn from my mistake here and hopefully not make a similar mistake in the future.  I certainly don't disagree with your recommendation for speedy keep; in fact, I'll amend my "Keep" recommendation above to "Speedy Keep" myself. --Smeazel (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, in principle, as we need good places to merge AD&D content that can't justify an article in and of themselves. That said, this really reads like a massive, list-based summary of information from primary sources, which make for a pretty unreadable and generally bad Wikipedia article. ~ mazca  t 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;I must admit that I'm a little baffled as to the benefit of this article. It's a bit like just listing tables of contents. My preference would be to restrict the list to creatures that have appeared in other D&D-related media, such as books, TV series or computer games. Otherwise it seems too esoteric.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it becomes less definable and more convoluted for mine, but anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Different sorts of articles for different sorts of subjects, old bean. A more extensive article for each monster would be better, as well as something that discusses the history of the development of monsters in the game from a more generally accessible viewpoint. The widely accepted community standards don't seem to allow for this, however; deletionists have whittled down D&D monster articles until pretty much all there's room for is esoteric lists. This, then, would seem to be the appropriate format for discussing this subject on Wikipedia. On another site perhaps there will be support for going into enough detail on the monsters in question for the article to be meaningful to the uninitiated. For here? This is what the deletionists have wrought. Embrace it, love it. This is Wikipedia. This is what it naturally evolves into: its perfect Platonic form. -- Poisonink (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no evidence to suggest that any of this content is notable either as a group or individually. It seems to me that this list or article fails, at best, WP:NOT or, at worst, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All of this content comes directly from Dungeons & Dragons publications, and the question must be asked, why reproduce it all here? Is Wikipedia to be used as a supplementary source for the publications of Wizards of the Coast? I think EEMIV has brought to our attention that the content of the article is basically a synthesis of contents & indices of various D&D modules. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for adding this to that discussion list. I hope new entries will appear there automatically?
 * nope - they have to be added manually. :) BOZ (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability concerns set aside for a moment: When the list will be finished with a one-sentence description of the monsters, it will, in my opinion, be neither a synthesis - where would be a problem with original research? - nor a supplementary source for Wizards products - who would be able to use this list for gaming purposes without consulting the original sources? Instead it will be a summary of a large amount of information from a number of sources about a core element of D&D, but which is of course much too large to fit into the D&D article proper. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly needs cleanup/more work, but is a reasonable start. It does what a list should do: organize material. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Rreference tables are permitted, but all we have here are indexes and annotations compiled from primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WebWarlock Shemeska (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WebWarlock and comment by Daranios.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (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.