Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minotaur (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 redirect to Minotaur. (non-admin closure) buidhe 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Minotaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG with no independent notability in reliable sources. The reference to the Ashgate Encyclopedia more involves the typical minotaur. The D&D version is sourced entirely to primary sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability outside of the game system. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Minotaur, which covers depictions of the mythical creature in popular culture. BD2412  T 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. The opening statement of this AfD is incorrect insofar as all three secondary sources present in the article do refer directly with the minotaur in D&D, not the minotaur in general (maybe there is a confusion with other entries of the minotaur in The Ashgate Encyclopedia aside from page 192?). However, all these secondary sources deal only with the aspect of creative origin of the minotaur in D&D, so I guess that's too little to support an article on its own, and ther merge target suggest by BD2412  seems reasonable to me. Daranios (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Minotaur, I added a sentence about this version to there, and there is no longer a reason to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is substantially more worth merging than the mere mention that the creature exists in the game. From the existing article, it should be noted that the creature appears in every edition of the game, including as a playable character in some, and that they are a significant race in the Dragonlance series of novels. BD2412  T 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Secunded. What Devonian Wombat already did is a great start, but there is more to merge as described by BD2412, including adding the primary and other secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Nothing to merge from the current version of the article, it's mostly unrefeenced or PRIMARY PLOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Minotaur per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the grounds for keeping though? You can’t just say “there’s sources” and nothing else. How is it independently notable? Sergecross73   msg me  19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect - Currently fails WP:GNG. There seems to be little present to establish why this version of the creature is particularly special, so I don't see much of anything to retain. TTN (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge very selectively to Minotaur. Creation info is worth mentioning, but most of this is crufty fictional content, and once you trim it away, there’s not enough to pass the GNG or warrant a spinout. Also support just redirecting if it helps us get a consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  01:21, 10 March 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.