Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists 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 delete. Since this is a list of lists, the relevant consideration is not whether the monsters are notable or the frequent subject of lists, but whether the lists themselves are. The consensus below is that this is not the case. Alternatively, this could be a disambiguation page, but at this time only two such lists remain. RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Same reason as several of the associated lists have been AFD' and deleted there: A list of each monster from each guidebook of the game is not very useful.. Blatant violation of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR. ミラP 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Which other lists are you referring to? - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See these ones for starters. ミラP 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Two of those were deleted, the other two are under discussion. It helps to either have an explantion as to why something is nominated, or a link to the nominations you say justify the the AFD. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I was going to suggest this could be used to start a "List of D&D Rulebooks" as that's how its almost setup, but then I see we have List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks which meets that need. --M asem (t) 03:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems clear that every list on this page will be deleted for non-notability, or at least everything besides one, so there is no real reason to keep this one around.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Insofar as any D&D monsters might be notable (which is still in doubt) and the monsters of D&D are notable as a group (I have seen 1 source that seems to support it), I think this list is the perfect place to list any D&D monsters that survive the purge. This is the only source I have seen that seems to support the notability of monsters in D&D as a group:
 * I hope somebody else can pull up another source. Rockphed (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope somebody else can pull up another source. Rockphed (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as crufty trivial factoids. Rockphed, your source is appreciated--but that such a source would help the notability of a list like this is questionable. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Um, guys. This is silly.  Are there great sources?  Only a few.  And they are hard to find because there are tons of RSes that list monsters like this.   Tons. And tons. , , ,  are just the first few that show up if you search for 'dungeons and dragons monsters'.  As far as books,  is amazing, but would not be counted as independent due to the publisher.  But if you were to read it you'd see it's a great treatment.  Oh well, let's go on to books that would count for purposes of Wikipedia rules.   in an encyclopedia by an academic which lists monsters from all sources including those from D&D.  is a list of monsters for D&D published by a different publisher.  There are dozens like that.  Books like  cover the broad topic of the conceptual origins of role-playing games including monsters.  There are lots of academic sources that do the same thing.   covers a similar topic from a CRPG viewpoint.   These books are fairly well cited (~50 cites) by the journals and conferences considered by Google scholar.  This would perhaps be a better article than a list.  But there are enough sources to make it a featured list.  , perhaps making it a featured list could go somewhere on your (remarkable) todo list?  Hobit (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your note, but this doesn't do anything for me. That those book searches that include the term "monsters" deliver solid hits is to be expected: monsters are part of the game. It's like adding "200" to a Monopoly search. What they establish, as far as I'm concerned, is that the game is notable, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. (The Peterson book looks quite interesting.) And the problem with these lists (which we find all over Wikipedia, of course, in all kinds of topics) is that they are so completely undue: excessive, overly detailed, in-universe, full of OR and plot summary, poorly verified or not at all--crufty, in a word. (I'm speaking in general, not just about this list of lists.) I looked at List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) (I see all of them are up for deletion?) and that's not even the worst one--but that's not encyclopedic content. And the lists of terrifying monsters #1-10 on those popular websites, yeah--they will never make me believe that lists of monsters (like lists of characters) and lists of lists of monsters are acceptable encyclopedic content. Thanks, and sorry, Drmies (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. You do realize that the first book is solely on monsters, yes?  I'd bet that well less than 10% of our list articles have sources that include things like "list of X" articles.  Sorry that doesn't win you over, but I'd say this very clearly greatly exceeds WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow Hobit, thank you for finding those! I will have to find a way to use them, but it feels like the battle to keep even the 1st edition AD&D monster list is just about lost at this point. :( The winds have changed over the last decade or so since I made these lists, and people really, really want them gone now. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. And I'd argue they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Gonna agree with you there for what it's worth. Will need to find a way to start over on an unfortunately much more limited basis; I have some ideas already, although it may be a little while before I can put any of that into play. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Being a disambiguation page of four pages, most of which seem to be guaranteed to be deleted, it will soon be functionally useless. On the topic itself, list upon list of monsters are game guide material. TTN (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have just closed the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters as redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, as consensus for deletion for was very thin, and at least some of the content and sources in the nominated article could be used to develop the explanation of the role of monsters in the game. I would suggest that merging this article into the same target would therefore be an equally appropriate outcome. bd2412  T 02:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TTN. As of now, this is merely a list of links to other deleted or soon-to-be-deleted other lists, and then some brief, completely unsourced information on the books.  As such, there really is nothing worth keeping or merging anywhere.  Rorshacma (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless list of other useless, deleted or soon-to-be-deleted lists. Not a very active user (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep All of the D&D monster list articles are a useful resource for the RPG gaming community. Much of this information has been long out of print and is otherwise unavailable to a large percentage of players. 12.106.168.131 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then recreate it in the D&D Wiki (if it isn't already there?) WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE expressly prohibits articles that are solely a game resource and guide, without encyclopedic content.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:12, 10 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.