Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardian daemon

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 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian daemon

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

This does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to some gamer site that would love this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, it fails WP:GNG having only primary, non independent sources (i have removed a claim that the D&D Guardian daemon is the same as the Necromancer Guardian daemon, since making such a claim is WP:OR. If the subject of the article is the more generic Guardian daemon (fantasy role play), then the Necromancer source is also primary/non independent failing to establish any notability for the generic version.) Failing the GNG, to options are Delete, Redirect or Merge. Being only primary sourced, Merging, given the state of the potential D&D based merge targets, is very likely simply shoveling non notable shit from one corner of the stall to another corner of the stall in a different primary -source -only- failing- to- establish -GNG- article. That leaves redirect and delete. "Guardian daemon" is such generic occult language that it seems that it would be impossible to know what the searcher was actually looking for - D&D monsters probably are not the majority. and since we have already been down the redirect restored with no third party sourcing a lock of the redirect would be needed. I dont think we loose anything with Delete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The transwiki target would likely be D&DWiki - which has a very bad reputation in the gaming community. Best to simply redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into some list of some similarly non-notable monsters from the same series.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. If there are many articles like this one around they could all be merged into a single one (or deleted en masse) Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A list exists. As for "many articles...like this one", you have no idea... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - the List of Lists of creatures in Dungeons & Dragons is probably longer than the recommended article length! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't' know about the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters list. The Bushranger is right, this is what the ~~TFWiki~~ D&DWiki is for. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - D&DWiki in this case. If D&DWiki was worth anything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters; no notability outside of the game. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as User:Bushranger suggests to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. The "daemons" are only notable within the D&D game context, and a big list like that is a lot easier to find and use than 420 separate articles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term; I don't see Guardian demon being a widespread general concept like Guardian angel. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M seems to apply here, Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. Difficulty in maintaining a redirect is an editor problem and not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. --Mark viking (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2013 (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.