Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solifugid (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 merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Despite mentioned as a reason, there is no policy that says game material such as Monster Manual II are not sources at all. Anything written by the author of the game is a primary source, even if the material is used to play the game. The same applies to video game manuals, album booklets, DVD inlays etc. Those sources are not useful to establish notability but there has never been any consensus to discount them as sources completely.  So Why  14:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Solifugid (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- not notable; there's nothing to merge as the content and the sources are all "in universe", such as Monster Manual II, a "rulebook published for different versions of the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy roleplaying game". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how my opinion is not policy based? "In universe" sources are game accessories, as I understand it. I may be wrong, but a "rulebook" looks to me to be a companion piece for the game, and is thus not a source to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per BOZ. This is identical to the previous listed article, and belongs on the same list that BOZ provided. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per K.e.coffman. Nothing to merge. - The   Magnificentist  10:58, 13 July 2017 (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.