Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons 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  17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Dungeons &amp; Dragons monsters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:LIST Advocate (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not because of Dungeons & Dragons because I'm a player, but simply because it just doesn't belong here. Not that it doesn't belong somewhere on the web, but not on this particular encyclopedia.  A complete list would be better suited on another website, and then we could reference that website from the main D&D article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - whatever cleanup issues there are, I will try to resolve. Just walk me through it. Same thing with Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters‎. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I recall the list was a compromise after a huge cleanout of individual D&D monster pages. Can you clarify what you r concerns are? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The page needs references, but otherwise it seems to be a reasonable list of where and how the information about D&D monsters was published. Given that, I can't see how it violates WP:LIST - if nothing else, it should easily fit as a bibliography for people interested in the subject matter. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I'll abstain from making a recommendation on this one--I recommended "delete" for the earlier nominated List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, but I'll hold off this time--but I do want to say I think you need a different reason for your nom. I don't see how "Violates WP:LIST" applies or even makes sense--reading over WP:LIST, there's nothing there to violate; it's all about how to include lists in Wikipedia, and why they're important, and there are no guidelines there about when to avoid lists--there's nothing to violate!  (Well, there is the statement about lists being "equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others", but if this article violates another content policy, then that should be given as the reason for the nom.)  I'm not arguing against the nom, per se--like I said, I recommended "delete" on a related nom--I just don't think the reason given makes sense.  There may be a valid reason for deletion here, but "Violates WP:LIST" isn't it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeazel (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh--forgot to sign my comment. Sorry. --Smeazel (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep suitable compromise page, the sort of thing to be encouraged. Why would we want to eliminate basic pages like this? DGG (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like it or not, Paul McDonald, this is the sort of thing Wikipedia is exceptionally good at. I think you may have intended to say "this sort of thing doesn't belong in the Encyclopedia Britannica," or "this sort of thing doesn't belong in the CIA's list of sovereign countries." This is exactly the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia, however. -- Poisonink (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  10:21, 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) 11:35, 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. Yes, Gavin. This is one of the many things Wikipedia can do, and will do, if the community decides this is one of the things Wikipedia should do. If the consensus is to keep this article, then I for one will take that as strong support for the idea that lists of creatures within popular fictional worlds are absolutely within Wikipedia's mission. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at WP:LIST I'm not seeing anything it violates. If the argument is that the articles it points to aren't notable, then that's a different discussion.  But as a list, it looks fine (perhaps even better than fine.  It's really well organized given the massive amount of material involved).  Hobit (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Rreference tables are permitted, but all we have here are indexes and annotations compiled from primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article does not violate WP:LIST, and nominator has not explained why they think it does. Edward321 (talk)
 * Keep I can't see how the article violates WP:LIST in any way. The nominator should frankly have explained precisely how or why they think it does, and if not I suggest we close this up as an invalid nomination. Shemeska (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not seem to violate WP:LIST.  Reliable sources exist on this subject matter.  They may not be reflected in the article, but per WP:N "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 10:01, 23 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.