Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demihuman Deities

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 List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. Tone 12:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demihuman Deities

Demihuman Deities (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)

Non-notable book. Only sourced to its Amazon page. A before search brings up nothing which comes close to being secondary. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple D&D AfDs are sprouting up every day. WP:ATD should be explored. Perhaps a merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This one is just too obscure. I've looked for sources, but I cannot find any reliable independent sources at all. There are also very few unreliable sources, which suggest that it isn't likely there are offline sources out there. As a "companion volume", this article could be merged with Faiths & Avatars, but that article also has a serious lack of reliable sources, so this would just be shifting the problem somewhere else. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches bring up zero reliable secondary sources discussing it. D&D may be notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the hundreds of official publications that have been released over the last forty years are not, themselves, notable unless they have the sources to demonstrate it. Redirecting or Merging information on a completely non-notable game book does nothing but, as Grayfell stated, shift the problem somewhere else. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks, but preference is to keep and improve. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The closer of this AFD should probably note that none of the above "Keep" arguments have attempted to address the issues of notability or complete lack of secondary sources, making them nothing more than WP:JUSTAVOTE. Rorshacma (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per RPG Geek, there is a review of this book in the German RPG magazine Envoyer (Issue 27 - Jan 1999). I haven't been able to track a copy down and I don't speak German. Can anyone else verify? Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can confirm there's about a half-page review in the German publication Envoyer and am working to obtain a copy. I'm fairly sure there should be reviews in the British periodicals too. Most of these books received sufficient coverage, but there's a really awkward period where the magazines just aren't archived online. I'm working to source all these, but I might not be able to get this one ready in an AFD timeframe. If we have to be pedantic and redirect to the list, whatever. Technically correct is the best kind of correct, right? But the sources almost certainly do exist and sooner or later, I'll be able to get copies and properly cite an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we draftify it until you're ready? I'm sympathetic to offline sources and the time it takes to find them, and you can move it back once you've had time to source it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also a review of this in the UK edition of Polyhedron, which may or may not meet standards for editorial independence. That periodical was published by an entity (RPGA UK) owned by the sister company (TSR UK) of the company that published the book that this article is about; however, it had a policy of local editorial control (to the extent that it was eventually discontinued for having too much editorial control). YMMV. Naturally, also, I'm still trying to track down a copy. At this point, the UK edition is quite rare and doesn't seem to have made it into any of the archives of the US edition. Because of course not. As for drafting, I really don't need more clutter in my userspace. So if I can't get copies of this stuff in the AFD window, and the existence of documented but currently-unavailable sources isn't sufficient to sway the closing admin, then we should at least redirect this rather than deleting it outright, and I'll pull it out of hock as soon as I have the sources available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the sources Squeamish Ossifrage mentioned are verified and added. Otherwise merge. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have yet to see a situation where a review from a publication was listed erroneously on RPGgeek or RPGnet; if anything, the most common error I have seen on those sites is omitting a published review that they should have listed. I will assume good faith that the review(s) at least exist, but being a non-English paper source it could be hard to track down. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks with no prejudice against recreating the article when the sources mentioned by Squeamish Ossifrage are found. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 17:13, 19 November 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.