Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic of Dungeons & Dragons


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Magic of Dungeons & Dragons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. This article consists entirely of gameguide content and is dubiously notable. There is nothing that indicates D&D magic, in general, it something that merits a separate encyclopedia entry. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. BOZ (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons. It's possible the subject will be covered more in the future or sources will emerge so the history is worth preserving, but for now it's one interesting part of a very popular gaming franchise. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article already has one strong secondary source (the "for dummies" book) with many other reliable independent sources available (e.g. Livingstone's book, cited in the WP article on D&D gameplay). I would like to see the article cleaned up, but there are no grounds for deletion. AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you are citing a game guide, therefore the article still runs in the face of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I think a gameplay article's perfectly fine, but there is nothing about D&D magic that couldn't be mentioned there that requires its own page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "D&D for Dummies" is not at all a "game guide" in the sense of that policy, and neither is the Livingstone book. Have you actually read NOTGAMEGUIDE, Zxcvbnm? It applies to imperative mood instruction manuals, and therefore neither to this article nor its sources.Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep pending evidence of a dearth of sources. I've seen lots of stuff by critics and fans, some PRIMARY and published by TSR/Wizards and others SELPUBLISHED but still usable for opinions, regarding reception of various spells, spellcasting classes, etc. so I find it hard to believe that an article could not be written and GMPAMEGUIDE-ish stuff rewritten to be more descriptive and encyclopedic if necessary. If this was Articles for deletion/Magic in Pathfinder I would !vote the opposite way based on an assumption that nothing could be made of such an article, but D&D has been pored over by critics and even a few legit scholars for decades. That said, for the love of god change the page's current title to Magic in Dungeons & Dragons: the current title reads like something completely different. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:06, 23 May 2018 (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.