Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mummy (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for detailed information about how one particular game treats one particular kind of monster. We could, if we wished, have articles for every monster which has appeared in any vaguely notable game noting differences in armour class, hit points and so on between editions. We should not, because this is not encyclopedic content. If someone wants to set up a D&D wiki then that's great, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Land (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much of the above is one user's opinion. This article does cite one reliable independent source (White Dwarf), and I suspect there are more out there. This article does not address armor class, hit points, etc. It may need a trim here and there, and better sourcing throughout, but those are not reasons to delete. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscrimnate collection of information is not only my opinion! Also, I'm not sure that any amount of independent comment on how the Mummy plays in a game of D&D is enough to establish notability. to quote WP:NOT again; "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". Reciting the different D&D books a monster has been in, and the fact that a gaming magazine has commented on this fact, is not discussing reception or significance, and is not encyclopedic information... The Land (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A well referenced sub-article of the main Dungeons & Dragons series, of too much detail to fold back into a parent article (whether Dungeons & Dragons or Mummy). See WP:SS for guidelines on this approach to articles. In any case D&D is such a seminal work in the fantasy genre, and its original treatments of various creatures so now-ubiquitous, I'd expect to have little trouble sourcing independent notability if it came to that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DFW. D&D monsters are, in many cases, the only variation people know of a particular creature. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.