Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giant (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

All the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), though some of the information on the copious amounts of related monsters included here can possible be merged out to various appropriate articles, if needed. While this article does have one non-primary source (the "For Dummies" book), the problems with using it to support notability is threefold: First, its only about one, single sub-type of giant, not the concept of D&D Giants in general. Second, its only a paragraph length amount of text that just summarizes the info from the Monstrous Manual. And third, as the only reliable, non-primary source I can find, it isn't enough to establish the notability needed for a stand alone article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator spammed 6 AfD nominations in 4 minutes, suggesting that they did not perform a proper WP:BEFORE style search before each nomination. For instance, the Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies book is an independent source, referenced in the article itself. --Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to fully satisfy WP:BEFORE prior to making multiple nominations especially when, as in this case, the articles in question are all about similar topics. In fact, the nomination mentions that I made my own attempt to find more sources. Exactly one miniscule "For Dummies" reference doesn't satisfy the significant or independent criteria. I also realized that multiple nominations could prove difficult and hence created the above-referenced RfC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the For Dummies and White Dwarf sources are independent, and an indicator of a start of notability for the topic. BOZ (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ, GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources shown meet the GNG. Additionally, there are many third-party sources which build on the DnD Giant template. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable with the independent sources. -- Dane ^talk 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems like there are some secondary sources here, and the article would be a useful place to merge articles on less notable giant-type monsters; some of these will have secondary coverage, adding to the coverage of giants overall. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2016 (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.