Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99)

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 18:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99)[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 1977 and 1999, and no sources seem to discuss the monsters from that time period as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 12:58, 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) 12:58, 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) 12:58, 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) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not belong on Wikipedia due to failing WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 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) 13:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TTN said almost exactly what I would have said were I to write my thoughts out. Rockphed (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has all of the same problems as all of the other D&D monster lists that have already been deleted or are currently up on AFD. This is essentially nothing more than a transcription of the table of contents of various D&D books, making it a game guide. It is not useful as a navigation tool, and it fails WP:LISTN as there are no sources that discuss this particularly grouping of monsters as a group. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a game guide, and no reliable sources that discuss this group (1977-99) should be put together, failing WP:LISTN and NFICTION. It appears a lot of dungeons and dragons lists have the same problem. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:40, 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) 14:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean it warrants a standalone article. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like the others. A few blue links don't make this a notable list, let alone one of notable items. The sourcing is highly questionable and independent: it should be clear that citing Creature Catalogue helps nothing, since it's really just a game guide. No, this is, I'm sorry to say, way too crufty. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 6 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.