Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The trend was delete, then it swung back to keep on the last relist, but with all the same basic disagreements in play. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Same thing as Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Fails WP:GNG, no sources seem to discuss the second edition monsters as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 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)
 * Keep per Cas Liber. BOZ (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is complete WP:GAMEGUIDE material. TTN (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source worth mentioning in this article is
 * which is the same source listed in the 1st edition version of this article. I suspect that the entry refers to monsters as an important part of D&D and has just been used to add a source to the edition specific pages. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this article is untenable.  We do not need tables of contents for every book ever published about monsters by TSR. An article that lists D&D monsters that are either unique to D&D or are uniquely interpreted by D&D might be tenable. Rockphed (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , who knows what's in that book? Serious question, serious answer: not many people, apparently--there are no reviews that I can find, the publisher seems to be an unknown entity, and the author is who? Thank you for pointing out how this citation occurs in every article--without a page number, and without anything to suggest what we are supposed to find in there. The citation really means nothing--look at the hollow edit summary here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It does say page 12, right before the ISBN, so we know that whatever is said is on page 12. No, I don't think we can hang an entire list around that single reference, no matter how much good faith we assume. Rockphed (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It does say page 12, right before the ISBN, so we know that whatever is said is on page 12. No, I don't think we can hang an entire list around that single reference, no matter how much good faith we assume. Rockphed (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Like the other specific D&D edition monster lists currently on AFD, this list is really nothing more than an attempt to transcribe the table of contents of a bunch of official books, making this little more than a game guide. There is no sources showing the notability of this specific grouping of D&D monsters, making it fail the notability requirements for a stand alone list, and its not even particularly useful as a navigation tool, as many of the entries just link back to other D&D lists.  As mentioned here and elsewhere, a singular "List of Dungeons and Dragons" creatures, including the handful of actual notable creatures, would be appropriate and easy to source.  These massive lists of cruft, however, are not appropriate to be kept.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GAMEGUIDE, etc. There should not be indiscriminate lists of monsters for this franchise, only a single list of the notable monsters.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of blue links there leading to the articles of these monsters of this type from this series. Thus is a valid list article.   D r e a m Focus  21:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One could expect most of those monster articles to be eventually AfD'd for non-notability. So far, none of them have stood up at AfD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, quite a number of these blue links just lead to other "List of D&D X Edition Monsters", or to articles that are unrelated to D&D at all, such as all the entries that are just regular animals. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NFICTION. Through I wonder if a list of D&D monsters from all editions would pass notability? Probably not, like a list of all elves or placenames in Tolkien works, etc. Not everything is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cas Liber. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Anon IP users seem to be restoring articles which have previously been redirect to this page, e.g. Abrian, Bariaur, Debbi (Dungeons & Dragons). So I think this is something to be considered in whatever action is taken as a result of this AfD, if this list page is deleted then users will surely continue in their attempt to restore the content in standalone articles.Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally support a pre-emptive WP:SALT on any redirects as well as the list articles themselves.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GAMEGUIDE.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinions are about 2:1 for deletion so far. Valid points on both sides. This is on the border between delete and no consensus. Relisting again in the hope that the outcome becomes clearer.
 * Delete, as with the others. A few blue links don't make this a notable list, let alone one of notable items. The sourcing is highly questionable (starting with the Lexikon der Zauberwelten, a totally non-noteworthy fan book, it appears; other sourcing is incidental and might help editors write a paragraph on some thing in a main article. No, this is, I'm sorry to say, way too crufty. Drmies (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not just a list of monsters from Dungeons & Dragons, but specifically from a single edition of the game. This might be tenable if there were substantial sources discussing how 2nd Edition AD&D monsters differed from other D&D monsters in terms of design philosophy, quality, etc. but I'm not aware of any such discussion. The only time they are discussed as a set is in the context of actually playing the game as a directory or game guide. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT, but leave behind a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This information is notable and valuable to the player base of the game. D&D is a major cultural touchstone for tabletop RPGs, and most of the books/sources that the monsters on this list come from are long out of print. This list and the other D&D monster lists for older editions are pretty much the only way a large percentage of players are able to access these monsters at all. Especially the monsters that aren't included in the newer editions of D&D. It provides a centralized starting point for research. 12.106.168.131 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The whole purpose of list articles like this was to reduce the presence of the individual articles about creatures from D&D which on their own were inherently unsupportable.  WP:GAMEGUIDE does not apply here;  this is not a guide to the game, or a set of instructions.  (I'll add that had I known about the AFD for the 1st edition list I would've voted keep on that as well, for the same reasons.)  The IP above also raises a valid point regarding the usefulness and importance of this as a research tool for out-of-print materials.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the above Keep votes, but failing that I suggest a merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which is where the 1st edition monster list was redirected. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RAWDATA for why that argument doesn't hold weight. Wikipedia cannot simply have pure data for research purposes, it must be placed in context. Merely being verifiable does not mean something requires an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Mainly because of WP:GAMEGUIDE, and the concerns raised by others.KingofGangsters (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a valid list of monsters. The list is notable. It is useful and it provides a centralized starting point for research. Wm335td (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE... -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree completely with what User Vulcan's Forge said. Lexikon der Zauberwelten is no fan-book, but an encyclopedia of fantasy in general. It may not be as prestigious and common as The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, but has the same intent and simply was what I had access to. Daranios (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep An excellent example of a list article that serves an encyclopedic function for a notable gaming systems, 2nd edition D&D. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added another source, and provided at least a little context for 2nd edition, as was requested here. Additionally, as BOZ requested: In case the end result of this discussion should be deletion, please keep the redirect to help those who have used this page as a resource. Daranios (talk) 12:38, 19 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.