Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hecatoncheires (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 redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hecatoncheires (Dungeons & Dragons)

[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)

Article fails WP:GNG with a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Reception is based on trivial mentions in lists. A minor monster that is not notable enough for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some list of D&D monsters. Fails WP:GNG, the reception is very superficial and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. I think User:BOZ can suggest a proper redirect target, and please note my strong preference to WP:SOFTDELETE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if desired merge any interesting information into an article on D&D monsters in general, where any notable monster could be included. Otherwise we'll end up with an enormous number of near-identical articles each sourced to barely-more-than-fancruft lists of my favourite strongest 10 monsters. Like Piotrus I couldn't currently find such a list or general article, but I would be sympathetic to one existing, given the amount that's been written about D&D, and the central role of monsters in general, to the game. Elemimele (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for failing to find Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons! That would be a good merge target (and redirect). Elemimele (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daranios below, or Merge/redirect per Piotrus - it is currently mentioned at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons and previously redirected there. BOZ (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect: How this should be judged depends on if the web articles should not be useable for some overarching reason. Each of the four has a paragraph of content which tells us why in a game with very many monsters this one is exceptional. So these are not a trivial mentions. Also, in contrast to many other monster article brought up for deletion, this one does not at all suffer from an excess of plot summary (though in fairness that was not a criticism in the nomination). So if the sources count, and I personally think they should (and I already know that others have a different opinion, so no need to spend too much time with this here), this meets WP:GNG. If they shouldn't, I obviously prefer a merge to deletion, probably best to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on sourcing: I don't honestly think this sourcing is great. Two references are primary to the rule-book; "The Gamer" just regurgitates the monster's characteristics presumably as per definition in the primary source, while the other three are all in ScreenRant which I'll accept is okayish; it's determined as marginally reliable in our perennial sources. They're not in-depth write-ups, they're all in lists of "here are a few monsters I like" type articles. There's a general problem about fantasy sources like this: in most sports and games, writers are writing about what someone else did or thinks: chess authors write that an opening is strong because someone else played it and won. Snooker authors write about who won which game and what shots they're good at. Whereas these D&D articles are all basically the personal opinion of one guy one morning; they feel a bit primary. But maybe this is my bias. Elemimele (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whichever article is deemed to be most appropriate. Even if those "Top Ten" style lists are deemed acceptable sources, which is debatable, the actual content regarding this monster in them is not extensive at all - all of them are mostly just a description of them straight from the actual game, with only a few sentences of any kind of actual analysis/discussion beyond that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like there is a beginning consensus to merge or redirect this article but less certainty on where to merge or redirect to. How about the suggestion of Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. There is a longer conversation to have about the reliability of ScreenRant and whether it provides any quality of coverage to create a Wikipedia article. But the shorter answer is there are no reliable independent sources to create something that meets the WP:GNG here. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (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.