Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prestige classes


 * 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. Nobody wants to keep this, but there is no consensus about whether a redirect should be created. This means that anybody can create such a redirect, and anybody can then contest it at RfD.  Sandstein  07:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

List of prestige classes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Literally a WP:GAMEGUIDE through and through. There is no aspect of this list that doesn't pretend to be a reference to players about the game, and all sources are primary. Fails notability criteria which states that pure lists of gameplay concepts are not allowed. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is just a massive list of non-notable gameplay elements, with no further context or indication of notability.  The only sources are entirely made up of game material from primary sources. I really don't see anything here worth preserving anywhere else.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). These are a dime a dozen with little outside coverage and all specific to a single edition of D&D.  (Unlike the alternative classes recently nom'd as well, which stretch across all editions for 40 years of content and have room to grow / more sources).  SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). A massive mess of cruft sourced entirely to primary sources that utterly fails WP:GAMEGUIDE and also fails WP:LISTN. The article should be deleted before redirecting to prevent a possible recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete ALL of the sources currently go back to wizards.com, so they're purely primary. Again this is on probably suitable for a D&D specific wiki - this is not properly encyclopaedic for Wikipedia. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still on board with just a straight up deletion. Not sure what a redirect does in this case. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Redirects are cheap. Prestige class already redirects to the proposed target. Prestige classes in Dungeons & Dragons redirects to this list. There are very few uses of the term on Wikipedia that don't refer to D&D, so this is likely the primary topic and is therefore a good search term. Many other "List of" articles have been redirected back to a related article when the list was determined to not warrant a separate page. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 20:28, 05 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. This as a list article is not a likely search term, nor is it a notable article. We can move the other redirect to the Character Class page. Easy done. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Even if kept, it needs to be renamed anyway (as this list is content from 3.5e). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per SnowFire. (There is no reason to delete this before redirecting; this list provides a useful basis for a more functional and productive recreation if secondary sources emerge, and there is no dispute or edit war happening that would prompt discouraging recreation.) —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 05:21, 05 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per SnowFire and 烏&#8288;Γ. Absolutely zero reason to wipe out the edit history via deletion before creating the redirect. In fact, that might even be against the site licensing, which requires attribution. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspected that to be true, but I didn't offer that as a reason because WP:MAD holds a claim that this doesn't violate licensing. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 19:47, 05 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If nothing is merged, then the edit history doesn't need to be retained. That is only required when the result is merge and redirect, per WP:MAD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but there's also no compelling reason to delete it. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 00:56, 06 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect, considering that there are also "prestige classes" in Star Wars Roleplaying Game (Wizards of the Coast), 2015 Renault Sport Trophy, Korean Air, Secret of the Solstice, DragonMech, Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark ... Fram (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of those have as much of a claim to being the primary topic as the D&D context does. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 09:45, 08 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing can plausibly lay claim to being the primary topic behind a game mechanic such as this. It is simply too common to say such a thing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fram makes a good point about "prestige class" not being exactly a D&D specific term. Maybe a disambiguation page which links to some of those other articles? oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with no obvious redirect target. There are a few games that have notable character classes, and any encyclopedic information is already written there. Jontesta (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is either a manual or unacceptable listcruft; either way, delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:01, 10 May 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.