Deletion of List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

Comment: Obviously D&D isn't a video game or a novel, but since there are no explicit guidelines for listing elements from role-playing games, I think drawing an analogy with other media for which there ''are'' explicit guidelines may be valid.  That being said, however, neither  nor #PLOT are absolute rules, and in the case of particularly significant games and books there are certainly cases where these rules are superseded
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:VGSCOPE||WP:NOT)

Comment: |Rreference tables are permitted, but all we have here are |indexes and annotations compiled from |primary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: I don't think anyone has argued for the deletion of the material on the grounds of article ''quality'' or of cleanup issues -- just that this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.  This is a compilation of summarized material from |primary sources.  (Hence, I believe, the reference to --it's not ''literally'' a plot summary, but it's very much the same kind of thing.)  I'm very familiar with D&D; I know how much monster-related information is out there; I'd even started compiling a database of similar information myself.  I realize how much work must have gone into this, and how much information it represents.  Unfortunately, |none of that is a valid argument for keeping the article.  I ''like'' these articles--I even saved copies of them for my own reference in case they're deleted.  But unfortunately, I don't see any justification for keeping them under Wikipedia guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:PLOT||WP:EFFORT)

Comment: This is one of a slew of articles under List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters.  I think all would be subject to deletion, no?  violation. I added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: This article is clearly a work in progress to REDUCE the number of other articles on this subject. So it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Since this is no where near a video game,  does not apply.  does not apply either given the 30+ year publication history of the game of which monsters are the most notable part.  And there is no plot or plot summary either here or the books they came from so there is no way that #PLOT can apply either.  The article is in need of some more 3rd party refs. But currently this is a large project taken on by only a few people who are dedicating their own time to improve Wikipedia bad reducing the clutter and adding proper content. I would even argue that given the number of articles this project has reduced should be reason alone for this article to remain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:VGSCOPE||WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: There is no |evidence to suggest that any of this content is |notable either as a group or individually. It seems to me that this list or article fails, at best, OT#DIR or, at worst, . All of this content comes directly from Dungeons & Dragons publications, and the question must be asked, why reproduce it all here? Is Wikipedia to be used as a supplementary source for the publications of Wizards of the Coast? I think
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)