Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)

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. Sandstein 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)[edit]

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

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

This page has pretty much the same problems as the edition-specific lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, such as List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. It's essentially just a transcription of the table of contents for every Dungeons & Dragons book published between 1974 and 1976, and no sources seem to discuss the monsters from that time period as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not belong on Wikipedia due to failing WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Developing a brand new list for notable articles and non-notable monsters that have at least one useful real world, third party source would be fine, but listing every single enemy and variant is just game guide material. There is no benefit for a general encyclopedia to go into such minutia, and it encourages the creation and recreation of all these non-notable articles. TTN (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary list. If someone wanted to find this kind of information, they'd go to a site dedicated to compiling it, so I see no use in it being here. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN. Rockphed (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once again, it has the same problems as all of the other non-notable lists of D&D monsters. Its nothing but a game guide, it fails as a useful navigation tool, and has no sources discussing this grouping as a group, causing it to fail WP:LISTN. I'm honestly amazed at how many of these there were. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a game guide, and no reliable sources that discuss this group (1974-76) should be put together, failing WP:LISTN and NFICTION Taewangkorea (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major feature of major game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that are major features of major games. However, notability is not inherited. The feature itself must be notable, rather than gaining it from the game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is no rationale for the monsters of this specific time period to be listed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:07, 9 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.