Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seawolf (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 delete. It's up to editors whether to create a redirect, opinion is divided about this. But consensus is clearly not to keep this. I'm ignoring BOZ's pure vote as usual.  Sandstein  10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Seawolf (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are only a handful of primary sources being used. Searching for sources brings up plenty of results on the many other topics with the same name. However, the D&D version has nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ミラP 16:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not a game guide and this has no notability outside of the game. Fails WP:GNG. I don't think WP:PRESERVE nor WP:ATD apply as this cannot be improved. It already faithfully describes much of what the game guides tell us, but the problem is that this is not notable beyond that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, which is what is becoming fairly standard for these DnD noms. I don't think many of these need to actually make it to AfD, making a WP:CHEAP redirect is usually enough. Only a few of the DnD monsters (the ones that have entered popular imagination) are notable. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The issue is that there is a pattern where D&D articles that are simply redirected/merged, even if that was the result of consensus at a previous discussion, are restored by anonymous IPs later, forcing us to go through the whole procedure again. Deleting the article first, even if a Redirect is then created after, prevents this from occurring.  Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we just ask for the pages to be protected to prevent that?★Trekker (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Deleting and then redirecting would be best. This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters Chetsford (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor monstercruft. Does not appear notable enough even to merit any sort of redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:25, 31 January 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.