Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

WP:DSGAMESWP:DSGAMES

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: board, card, etc. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Games: board, card, etc. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Games-related deletions

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters. The page does not address the concerns raised in that discussion, and continues to be a WP:DIRECTORY that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons has the actually standalone notable monsters. Maybe WP:SALT time for this page too, given that people cannot seem to stop recreating it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My reasoning is unchanged from the last AFD for this list, when it was Deleted several years ago. D&D monsters are notable as a group, hence why we have the Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons article that includes lists of some of the more notable examples. Some individual monsters are even notable enough to have their own articles. This list, however, is essentially nothing but a table of contents of various official D&D books from a specific version of the game. It is not even useful as a navigational list, as the vast majority of blue links here just redirect to different lists of D&D monsters. As stated in the nomination, it runs afoul of multiple categories at WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after vast improvement in sourcing over the condition it was in at time of the first AFD. The article now contains a significant amount of independently sourced content on the concept of monsters in 3.5 edition in general and on specific monsters as well. Failing that, there is significant potential for improvement and this should be moved back Draft rather than deleted again. To counter the claims that this violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in specific official D&D 3.5 edition books. It is a sortable drop-down list for a single edition because a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries, as clearly shown in this article. These independent sources provide context with referenced explanations. The majority of the content for each monster goes beyond plot summary-only descriptions of the monsters in question. These sources discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of these monsters in addition to concise summaries. These are likewise not excessive listings of statistics that lack context or explanation as each entry contains very little in-game statistical information, and do include explanatory text providing context. It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game. These gameplay concepts as a whole and many individually are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context. With the independent sources provided, this list serves an important encyclopedic purpose for readers to better understand the subjects individually and as a whole. This is more than a simple listing without context, which 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 several years, which provides an inherent context to the growth and establishment of the game over time. This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game. The fact that more of the entries currently lack independent sources is something likely to change over time given how many have been added in the amount of time that this was in draft space, and I believe that in time this list will continue to improve if it remains in article space. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game." An indiscriminate list of creatures and their requisite number is essentially a guide to what monsters appear in the game rather than only including what is notable. The nature of a game guide is that it includes all information regardless of importance. That may be fine for WikiBooks but not Wikipedia proper. I'd support a transwiki if it would make sense but draftification is unlikely to help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much has changed since last time and I see little discussion of the entire overarching topic, only random scattered sources on individual monsters (Many of whom already have articles are or already listed elsewhere). Runs afoul of several guidelines. I see no reason to retain this list. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps reduce to the list of monsters for which new information was introduced, or which are themselves newly introduced. BD2412 T 23:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article gives context, e.g., in the column "description", so it is neither a case of WP:DIRECTORY nor of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list may be used as game guide, but its purpose is obviously not to be a guide for the game, so WP:GAMEGUIDE also does not hold. --Cyfal (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously not"? How so exactly? GAMEGUIDE is not based on author intent, which is impossible to know for sure, but on the structure of the article, which clearly resembles a guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many secondary sources in the article, more are out there to be used for further improvement in the future - some of those from Talk:Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons will apply here - and more are published all the time. So there has been significant improvement since the result of the last deletion result. This is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, as there is a large but defined and limited number of entries here. It does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because it is not a simple listing, but contains more information and sourced commentary. It is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, because this is not meant to and will not at all help to play the game, but rather illustrates general interest by secondary sources made available for Wikipedia readers in this spin-out topic from Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. It surely is not perfect, but as always Wikipedia is WP:WORKINPROGRESS, and the current state has been approved through the official channel of WP:AFC to come back into mainspace, as is the proper way to go after improvements after a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't find the argument regarding the number of sources particularly compelling because few (if any) are actually about the 3.5 specific version of the monsters, but are instead about the monsters in the franchise as a whole, or very specifically about a different version of the game. And many of them are extremely poor quality (i.e. Listicles from content mills) or are things like previews/announcements for 5th edition books that have little-to-nothing to do with listing every monster appearing in 3.5. Again, we have Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons to actually cover the concept of the notability of monsters in D&D and to list examples that sources show are notable. Listing every single monster from a single version of the game, without any regard to notability or sources, is not a valid spinout. As I said before, most of this list is even worse than a WP:GAMEGUIDE, it is simply a table of contents for D&D gamebooks. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AFD. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, which requires encyclopedia articles to "avoid lists of gameplay concepts". At best, most of these examples are redundant with Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, which could be a decent WP:ATD-R. No consensus to re-create this deleted article. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia doesn't create multiple character lists from the same series. Compare examples from Category:Lists of Nintendo characters. It does a disservice to readers to split up several different lists for basically the same characters,. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are subject to WP:FAILN, which this one is currently undergoing. AfD consensus decides whether the individual list should be kept. I think at least one participant has mentioned WP:HANDLE as well. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above referenced ATDs, while well-meaning, are problematic in that there exist somewhere between six and ten "versions" of Dungeons and Dragons. While all are role-playing games featuring monsters, the lists are not the same between them, nor are the write-ups or characteristics of the monsters readily interchanged between any two versions. For Wikipedia notability purposes "Dungeons and Dragons" is a genre of game, and specific versions, like 3.5, are specific games within that genre. But that doesn't really fit, because when a D&D-specific monster is covered in RS, which version of that monster is seeing its notability affirmed? The D&D current at time of RS publication? All ones previously to and including that version? All versions including those first published years subsequent to the RS? Thus, I believe that per-version lists of monsters are the least bad way to cover this notable topic, while acknowledging that neither this, nor any other schema we've been able to come up with, absolutely fits our notability and list policies perfectly. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am unable to !vote as I am involved as the reviewer who accepted the draft through AfC. The author @BOZ is aware of the issues with this list, as was discussed in this conversation. Once the list is fully complete, it will be split into smaller lists for the sections that are considered too long for this main list. There is obviously history here with a prior AfD, however as that AfD took place 6 years ago, the list is not going to be the same as it was then (on Wikipedia). It should therefore be assessed as it sits today. 11WB (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @11wallisb: I have never heard that an AfC reviewer is unable to !vote in a discussion. I'd be interested in seeing the policy saying that, as I have participated in discussions where I was the AfC reviewer, and merely disclosed my role when participating. BD2412 T 18:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't policy to my knowledge. I choose not to !vote in AfDs where I have prior involvement in good faith. A !vote whether it be to keep or delete could present underlying connotations in those scenarios. It's a choice I make to maintain neutrality, but where I'm still able to share information on a matter, such as this one. 11WB (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not entirely sure on Keep vs Redirect/WP:DRAFTIFY but I do oppose the lister's suggestion of WP:SALT "given that people cannot seem to stop recreating it". While a previous version of this article went through AfD & was deleted, this version went through the AfC process, was reviewed/accepted and then put up for AfD a few days later. Salting doesn't seem warranted since this is not a case of the article being repeatedly recreated & put back into mainspace without review. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to jam articles through AfC without significant changes is still recreation. It's likely some inexperienced reviewer will approve it eventually and it will slip through the cracks, even if it is rejected by experienced reviewers. This seems to be what happened here after it was declined by Pokelego999 earlier for quite valid reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just had a discussion with BOZ regarding that here. They are aware it is usually not recommended to remove previous declines. Due to them doing that, I wasn't aware of previous reviewers reasoning for not accepting the article. I have pinged The Bushranger for comment. 11WB (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this was done mistakenly. Definitely not on purpose! 11WB (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, between the last decline and the most recent submission, over twenty new references were added to the article. I don't see how that can fairly be characterized as "Trying to jam articles through AfC without significant changes". BD2412 T 03:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references are all for reception of individual monsters. They do not, however, address the WP:LISTN issue of the list as a whole or why it does not WP:OVERLAP with the more general Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons. The list needed major structural changes and the added references were very minor. So while there were changes, they were not what I'd characterize as "significant" as they were ignoring the problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did give a further follow-up to their reasoning here. I don't agree that this list in particular was attempted to be accepted through AfC in that manner (even though how it looks might suggest otherwise—this still isn't the case at all). I will concede however, in the event that this AfD does close as deleted, that I accepted the draft too early. For the moment, I stand by my acceptance of this draft as I believe it is okay for mainspace. (This isn't a vote for keep, merely my AfC review decision from a few days ago). 11WB (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm, the duplicate point has been made few times however looking at the article you linked and this one, there is a clear difference in years. Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons lists monsters from 1977 into the 80s and List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters lists monsters from 2003 through to 2007. I know very little about D&D and Baldur's Gate, however this discrepancy appears to be quite obvious. Or have I got this one completely wrong? 11WB (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the name and lede of the "Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons" article does not specify a timeframe for the creatures. I see some monsters missing from the first list, such as Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), but nothing is saying they cannot be added to that one. The criteria should be tightened to standalone notable monsters only as there are simply too many generic creatures that got minor mentions for the list to not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No opposition to any new articles on standalone notable monsters that can actually come up with sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, but I'd suspect that to be few and far between if it doesn't exist already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is, in the article you linked there is 'Monster Manual (1977)' and 'Monster Manual II (1983)'. In this one however all the manuals are from 2003 to 2007. 11WB (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what I am saying is that the majority of notable creatures from D&D 3.5 edition were introduced far earlier. D&D reuses many monsters and does not introduce a totally new slate of creatures each time. The editions are just revisions of rules and lore, etc. Anything that is an exception to that can easily be added to the general monster list in a new section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fair enough, this is helpful to know, thank you. This also shows how little I understand the game. That point I made can be completely disregarded! 11WB (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

Games-related deletions

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters

Templates for discussion