Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus leaning towards Procedural keep because this AfD was too close to the last one. However, there are legitimate concerns about WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NFICTION, and I recommend editors to discuss how to present and improve the given information to avoid another AfD in the future. – sgeureka t•c 08:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am renominating at AfD because I believe that the rationale for the last AfD was poor (just a generic "fails GNG") and created much confusion. A more complete rationale is needed for this article.

The article should be removed because it clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It functions as a pure directory of monsters, without putting them in context at all. Most if not all monsters on the list are not blue links. In that respect it is similar to the other lists that were removed for the same reason.

It can also be said to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE as there seems to be no other purpose than to inform players of what monsters exist in the game. A casual reader will not gain much from this list, and will only see a lengthy list of monsters - in fact one of the longest on Wikipedia.

If there is an issue with this information being lost, it should be transwikied. That is not an argument that would mandate it to remain on Wikipedia in violation of WP:NOT. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not a re-listing, it is a re-nomination of an article that failed to get a proper consensus to delete and was nominated less than a month ago. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I did not mean to use that wording. It is a renomination because I believe the previous AfD was faulty which caused it to reach no consensus.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I feel like this probably won't last with such a quick renomination, but might as well weigh in on it again. This is WP:GAMEGUIDE material unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. It's an overly in-depth collection of trivial items that benefits nobody but hardcore fans. If this and the other articles are considered an important resource by fans, then they should be temporarily undeleted and transwikied to Fandom and any other wiki where they'd be at home. I'd also recommend pinging everyone from the previous AfD to avoid assertions of bad faith. TTN (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the quick renomination is probably not going to result in a different outcome, as the same editors are very likely going to weigh in with the same comments as the version that just closed. That said, I will reiterate my points in that prior discussion, which largely fall in line with this new nomination. The list falls somewhere between a list of table of contents and a pure WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is virtually nothing discussing this particular grouping as a whole, causing it to fail WP:LISTN. The two non-primary sources being used here are being used to support one statement, that monsters are "an important element" to the game. That is not sufficient coverage for the subject matter. While I don't have access to the German book, looking up the Ashgate Encyclopedia shows me that the entry regarding the game does not specifically talk about 2nd Edition monsters at all. It is a brief overview of the concept of monsters in the game in general, which is a great source for a single article on the actual notable D&D monsters, which has been proposed several times in the AFDs for the other lists, but does nothing to establish any sort of independent notability for the specific concept of "AD&D 2nd Edition Monsters" that would allow it to have the notability needed for a stand alone list. Rorshacma (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the huge amount of D&D monsters deleted from WP, I don't think any of the nn monsters should be redirected anywhere on WP. ミラP 21:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop. If you'd like to change the outcome of the previous discussion, deletion review is here. There's a longstanding consensus that you aren't allowed to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED says that you SHOULDN'T argue that the article should be kept solely based on the fact that it was recently relisted unless it's a frivolous nom (it clearly isn't).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know. It is just an essay. However it describes the feelings editors have when they debate the merits of an article for 25 days, and then when it mercifully closes you renominate it a few hours after the AfD closes/ Nice work (sarcasm). Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again – My view remains unchanged from the AFD from the last few weeks, that I agree with the Keep responses from the previous AFD, but failing that I suggest a merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which is where the 1st edition monster list was redirected after its AFD. Also, just because OTHERAFDsEXIST on similar topics, the results of those discussions do not proscribe the results of other discussions, and each should be weighed on its own merits. Even if this is not retained as a separate article, there is some content that could be useable elsewhere, such as that from "The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters". BOZ (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep You can not renominate an article for deletion the same day it closed because you didn't get the result you wanted. This is ridiculous. The previous one was started on 27 September 2019 and closed today. That's 25 days it was had, no need to drag it out more so. Dream Focus 23:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My views are unchanged, though this may be a good opportunity to point at a few "keep" arguments from the last AfD. We heard it was a valid list article because of the blue links, but it was pointed out (by DreamFocus) that the articles that the list links to which have been nominated for deletion have not stood up against those nominations. A quick look at the article shows that the number of blue links (that actually point at articles) isn't overwhelming either. Someone linked "bat" and other regular animals, and some of the blue links are just redirects...in one case at least to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Arguments like "This information is notable and valuable to the player base of the game. D&D is a major cultural touchstone..." aren't valid arguments here. There was some talk about something being mentioned in Lexikon der Zauberwelten, a book that seems to be completely unavailable, whose title generates 286 Google hits, a book that doesn't seem to be cited in any other book, and according to WorldCat is held by only six libraries. Plus, one single page from that book is cited: there is no way in which one page can support an article of this length.

    There can be two valid reasons that I see for keeping this: it is a valid list article with plenty of strong blue links, or its content is reliably sourced with secondary sources. Neither of these are valid here. Delete. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that since the last nomination there are 11 articles it linked to which had their links removed after those articles were deleted. Links to articles such as Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons) and Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons) still link to articles about the creatures in the Dungeon & Dragons games. How many other valid links are left? Is there a bot that counts them? Dream Focus 23:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTAGAIN is an essay on AfD fatigue, however it is not policy. You certainly can nominate the article over and over. However it can be frustrating and WP:DISRUPTIVE to see that the renomination was made hours after the last AfD closed. Note to nominator: a deletion review is the proper avenue if you disagree with the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the last AfD. You may get a new local consensus but it is unlikely. My opinion and !vote is that this is a valid list article. I am not into D&D however I see this as a list defined by monsters that have been published in official D&D books. The nomination begins to feel like WP:IDONTLIKEIT when editors are forced to spend time on an item that they have literally just concluded hours ago. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just used Firefox Find command to see how many links were to articles with (Dungeons & Dragons) in the link, and the answer is 108. So that qualifies as a valid list article. Dream Focus 23:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus, thanks for your diligence. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you can list them, so we can start culling. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That number is a bit off, though, as it seems to be counting all links, such as the listings of books, and not just the actual entries on the list. Just counting manually, I came up with about 87 actual entries that are blue linked, or about 84 if you take out the ones that are linked to articles on actual real life animals. Of those, 13 of them just redirect to another list of monsters at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, in which most of them are not, and should not be, listed. And several of the blue links here actually just link back to this same list. And, in all honesty, the vast majority of the remaining 65-70 blue linked articles will very likely be put up for AFD in the coming weeks, with little chance of being kept. Rorshacma (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. So does your tool count Oread (Dungeons & Dragons), which is in fact a redirect to Fey (Dungeons & Dragons), where that content is "verified" by links to manuals. Anyway, does it count this once or twice? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per User:Dream Focus. Jdcomix (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the individual monsters do not have to be notable as it is a well-defined and limited list. It is a breakout from the main article due to size issues Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I leave the question of the advisability or otherwise of this renomination to others. Since we are here, my opinion on the matter at hand remains unchanged, namely that monsters from this one specific edition of D&D are not regularly discussed as a set in any context other than as a game guide or directory. That said, I also would not object to a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which was raised as a possible compromise position. Lowercaserho (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article is far beyond a gaming guide. It is a valuable list article of canonical content from Dungeons and Dragons. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I don't find the objections of others to this renomination to be fair. The renomination was made in good faith and for good reasons. Further, I find the argument for the need to split off this list for content forking purposes ill advised. This kind of content doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. It's fan-cruft and un-encyclopedic with no real world notability. Further, I'm not so sure such lists would pass WP:COPYVIO since they seem to be too closely based on the source material.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major feature of a major game. Do we need articles on each creature? Probably not. But there's nothing wrong with a list of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer. I am seriously concerned that many of the "keep" votes have not properly addressed the fact that this list is entirely generated from the source material and that its basically a substitute for the works in question. To me this is too closely similar to the actual game guide (which is itself a list) and could be viewed as copyright infringement. Where are the secondary and tertiary sources, and how does this article differentiate itself from the actual source material? These are serious legal questions that need answering.4meter4 (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (albeit without prejudice against a merge to Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons, I just think there isn't anything worth merging). As I said in one of the sundry discussions on these lists, the article is a table of contents of books written by TSR. Except the two aforementioned sources (that establish that monsters are an important part of D&D), which are not specific to an edition, all the sources are primary in nature. If this was a list of every D&D monster from 2nd edition that was discussed as a monster from second edition in WP:42 sources, it would be a valid list. If it was supported by sources that talked about the monsters in 2nd edition D&D as a group (even one that talked about how monster design changed over the course of the edition), I could see having a list. However, there are no (reliable) sources that do that, or at least none that anyone has put forward or that I can find. I am sure that if we looked we could find self-published dissertations and oral histories about how monster design changed over the history of D&D by the hundreds (in fact, I just found 2 in a simple google search), but I don't think we will find reliable, independent, secondary, significant sources. Rockphed (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments from the last discussion still hold for me. This list was a compromise, a number of deletion discussions decided that individual monsters were not notable in themselves, but should be collected/redirected here, not deleted entirely. These decisions should count for something. It is useful resource and has been for the last ten years. It is a major subject within the game.
The Ashgate Encyclopedia does mention the 2nd edition, if briefly.
The list now gives at least some context specifically for 2nd edition (granted, mostly based on primary sources, but not exclusively so). Several of the deletion votes seem to suggest that a list for all the editions would be preferable. I would be fine with that, if that would indeed be wanted, but the reason to have lists for different editions in the first place was length, understandably.
The Ashgate Encyclopedia also says that monsters in the game were drawn form a wide variety of sources. In the discussion about how many blue links there are, mostly those about articles of "Monster x (Dungeons & Dragons)" were taken into account. I think this list could be a very nice overview about the real-world/mythical/fictional subjects the game draws on, collecting "X in popular culture" sections from the mentioned humble bat to the legendary dragon. Those links are mostly black at the moment, ofted because there was a now deleted "Monster x (Dungeons & Dragons)". If we add these links I believe we will be way beyond the discussed "10? 20? 30? 50?" or "65-70". Daranios (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This argument seems to hinge on this being a simple listing (point 7) without context. Context has been adequately supplied as to which elements of the game these came from and when they were published. It also provides a timeline of the game over 9 years, which I suggest provides an inherent "context" to the growth and establishment of the game over time.
  • This also seems to rely upon the idea that most of the creatures listed are not bluelinked - which as has been pointed out numerous times before, is the whole point of the list article, to reduce the number of other articles, and associated deletion discussions for them, about monsters from the game which are not themselves inherently notable. Deleting a list article which exists to keep other articles out of the encyclopedia because they aren't themselves notable seems counter-productive (and smacks of something else, which I'll get to in a moment.)
  • WP:GAMEGUIDE. This one keeps right on coming back. None of the points associated with WP:GAMEGUIDE apply. The closest is point #3, video games, and that doesn't come close. This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game.
  • "a casual reader will not gain much from this list". That's nice, but irrelevant. As was repeatedly pointed out in the previous two discussions, casual readers aren't using this page. People researching the history of the game are, and if you want to start stripping material out of the encyclopedia that people are actually using, you might want to start thinking about the whole point of having an online encyclopedia that anyone can access in the first place.
  • "one of the longest on wikipedia". If someone can point me to a WP policy which says that articles should not exceed X bytes in length, I'd love to see it. Next.
  • "If there is an issue with this information being lost, it should be transwikied". Ah. Now we come to the crux of the matter. This boils down to "it shouldn't be here, move it somewhere else". As it happens, there is a policy for this: it's called WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that isn't a valid reason for deletion either.
  • someone else above brought up WP:COPYVIO as an argument for deletion. That doesn't work either, because as has also been stated before, lists of factual information can't be copyrighted. It has actually been discussed in the context of the D&D monster list articles before, but, in an instance of biting irony, I can't point you directly at the discussion, because, of course, it took place on the talk page of another monster list article which has already been deleted. [SELF EDIT: Found it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Advanced_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_1st_edition_monsters&oldid=919825211, and also Feist v. Rural.]
Now, I apologize if this comes across as a tad tetchy. Maybe it's the head cold I'm suffering through, or the multiple doses of cough medicine I've had today. Or maybe I'm in the mood to pick a fight, just gettin' warmed up, and ready to tell some punk kids to get off my lawn. Either way, I've had enough. My only further contribution to this discussion right now is to recommend a megalodon-sized WP:TROUT for the nominator for re-nominating this 4 hours and 15 minutes after the previous one closed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAMEGUIDE definitely applies unless you want to be literal to the wording in that only video games are subject to that, which is silly. This definitely falls under "gameplay weapons, items, or concepts." TTN (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LENGTH does cover article size and put restrictions on it, though I just wanted to demonstrate how unnecessarily large and database-like the article is that it was even recognized outside of Wikipedia for it.
The page should not be written for game fans researching that game. That's what you call fancruft. It should be written in a way a casual reader can understand, rather than a no-context list of monsters. Such is true for almost every article on Wikipedia, besides extremely technical scientific concepts.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the "Lists" section of WP:LENGTH seems to support the format of this list: It is fine for a list to be long if it cannot be summarized. Splitting should be considered, but only if there is a "natural" way. Splitting has been discussed and rejected, and I don't think those sceptical about the list now will be happier with the existance of several lists only to fulfill the 200 kB recommendation. Daranios (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm someone who grew up with D&D and their wild dice. I still have the original Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set in my game cabinet. That being said, there should be a single "list of..." which should cover the major characters which don't rate their own article, and the major secondary characters as well. There is no reason to have a list of every character in the series, it would be like if there was a list of The Honeymooners characters which included Tony Amico.Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd say another apt comparison would be if, say, someone created a list that was List of Final Fantasy VII Monsters, which was nothing but a massive listing of every single enemy that appeared in the game. I don't think anyone questions that Final Fantasy VII is one of the most notable video game RPGs of all time, but likewise I don't think anyone would question that a list like that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. This list is essentially exactly that, only for a specific version of a tabletop RPG rather than a videogame RPG. Arguments that this list is for fans or people researching D&D, without actual sources or policy based arguments to back it up, are nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments.Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm just now seeing this and it must be frustrating to those wanting to keep this that the article has been renominated so quickly, but here we are. This unfortunately fails WP:LISTN. It appears to be sourced almost completely to primary sources or database entries with possibly some WP:OR thrown in and I think WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GAMEGUIDE applies. SportingFlyer T·C 13:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources, although secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia, there is no outright prohibition on primary sources. Indeed, with list articles you'll find that many if not most rely on primary sources. For example, this one and this one and many others. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Secunding AugusteBlanqui. Also compare the phrasing in WP:LISTN: " The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and in WP:LSC: "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". Daranios (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while primary sources can occasionally be used, an article reliant entirely on primary sources fails our notability guidelines. The difference between this article and the articles you've linked is that if someone wanted to, they could source the entirety of those articles using secondary sources. I haven't seen anything here which convinces me this information has been presented in secondary, independent sources, whereas a list of Oscar winners could be compiled from newspapers all over the world. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are a multitude of list articles where IP restrictions affect the availability of secondary sources. The policy quote that Daranios quoted addresses your concerns it seems. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AugusteBlanqui: No, my concerns stand. I have not seen a single secondary source which would lend notability to this list, meaning the content as it stands is not encyclopedic, and I have never heard of "IP restrictions" having an impact on sourcing. WP:LSC is about the notability of items in the list - we are discussing the notablity of the list article, which has not yet been established. SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The notability of the list derives from Dungeons & Dragons for which there are thousands of secondary sources. WP:LISTN explains this as Daranios so helpfully provided. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but just because the primary topic is notable does not mean that every list relating to the primary topic is also notable. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article does have secondary sources, even though they are very few. They refer to the group of items, which are, as the guidelines say, the important thing in this regard. So I think it is natural and no grounds for deletion that the bulk of the list is based on primary sources. Daranios (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are secondary, please? They all look to me like they're not independent, and the one which looks like it is possibly secondary (Ashgate) only spends a couple pages on it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ashgate Encyclopedia... and Lexikon der Zauberwelten are independent secondary source for the whole topic, Heroic Worlds is an independent secondary source for some context. The article from Dragon magazine 154 and the articles on the Wizards of the Coast homepage, "History of TSR" and "Monster Mythology" are secondary but affiliated sources. More secondary sources could be found for a few individual creatures, but I think that's not a major point, right? What has the page count of any secondary source to do with anything? Daranios (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heroic Worlds seems to be a list of essays from game creators. Affiliated sources unfortunately don't lend notability. Ashgate Encyclopaedia and Lexikon der Zauberwelten aren't used for the list items but rather to reference the article's prose. I still don't see this passing WP:GNG, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't have the whole picture about Heroic Worlds, but if this is correct, the essays you mention are there in addition to the encyclopedic content.
More importantly, WP:LISTN says that secondary sources are exactly not needed for the listed items, but for the items as a group (as I have alreay quoted above). The prose section you mentioned is the section that does talk about the items as group. Daranios (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How much do the sources talk about monsters in 2nd edition D&D as opposed to monsters in D&D as a whole? Lexikon der Zauberwelten was used as a source for the same phrase in at least 2 (and possibly all) of the "monsters in D&D edition" lists. How significant is the coverage in the two other sources? Is the section used as a source one of the essays, or encyclopedic content? Rockphed (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Ashgate Encyclopedia first talks about the importance monsters in D&D in general and the goes through publications from Original D&D to 2nd edition to emphasize their importance in each edition. Lexikon der Zauberwelten has one article for both editions of AD&D, first mentioning 1st edition then going on to 2nd edition settings and monsters as a characteristic part therein.
To repeat a point I mentioned above: Is there actually anyone who would prefer if we had an even longer list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons monsters including 1st and 2nd edition (or even a list of Dungeons & Dragons monsters for all editions)? That's kind of what the doubts about 2nd edition monsters being distinguishable from D&D monsters in general would suggest. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they have no secondary sources to speak of, or are only mentioned in passing on top-10 lists and the like, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia, period, even as part of a list. There is Wikia/Fandom/etc. for that.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the rationale put forth by Vulcan's Forge. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This recent book[1], which is independent (but under license to it can use D&D IP) and significant, devotes significant space to 2nd edition D&D monsters. For example, the text notes (page 223) a significant change from 1st edition was the elimination of demons and devils in response to the moral panic of the 1980s. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I would consider that book to be "independent". Its listed as an official D&D product on the main Dungeons and Dragons site. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like very much a primary sourced, "official" text to me. The fact that it's marked with the series's logo shows that much.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten Speed Press is owned by Random House. However, like most D&D publications the IP has to be licensed from Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast. So it is an 'officially license' product. But so are most D&D publications outside of the Open Gaming License or else the art, monsters, could not be used. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep and a trout to the nom for immediately renominating, rather than going through the proper deletion review process. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:51, 29 October 2019 (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.
  1. ^ Witwer, Michael (October 2018). Dungeons & Dragons art & arcana : a visual history. Newman, Kyle, 1976-, Peterson, Jonathan, 1960-, Witwer, Sam, 1977-, Manganiello, Joe,, TSR, Inc. California. ISBN 9780399580949. OCLC 1033548473.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Advanced_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_2nd_edition_monsters_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=943709927"