Deletion of List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (3rd nomination)

Comment: Fails  and . I don't find the objections of others to this renomination to be fair. The renomination was made in good faith and for good reasons. Further, I find the argument for the need to split off this list for Wikipedia:Content forking|content forking purposes ill advised. This kind of content doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. It's fan-cruft and un-encyclopedic with no real world notability. Further, I'm not so sure such lists would pass  since they seem to be too closely based on the source material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE||WP:COPYVIO)

Comment: I feel like this probably won't last with such a quick renomination, but might as well weigh in on it again. This is  material unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. It's an overly in-depth collection of trivial items that benefits nobody but hardcore fans. If this and the other articles are considered an important resource by fans, then they should be temporarily undeleted and transwikied to Fandom and any other wiki where they'd be at home. I'd also recommend pinging everyone from the previous AfD to avoid assertions of bad faith
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: I'm just now seeing this and it must be frustrating to those wanting to keep this that the article has been renominated so quickly, but here we are. This unfortunately fails . It appears to be sourced almost completely to primary sources or database entries with possibly some  thrown in and I think  and  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:OR||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: albeit without prejudice against a merge to Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons, I just think there isn't anything worth merging).  As I said in one of the sundry discussions on these lists, the article is a table of contents of books written by TSR.  Except the two aforementioned sources (that establish that monsters are an important part of D&D), which are not specific to an edition, all the sources are primary in nature.  If this was a list of every D&D monster from 2nd edition that was discussed as a monster from second edition in  sources, it would be a valid list.  If it was supported by sources that talked about the monsters in 2nd edition D&D as a group (even one that talked about how monster design changed over the course of the edition), I could see having a list. However, there are no (reliable) sources that do that, or at least none that anyone has put forward or that I can find. I am sure that if we looked we could find self-published dissertations and oral histories about how monster design changed over the history of D&D by the hundreds (in fact, I just found 2 in a simple google search), but I don't think we will find reliable, independent, secondary, significant sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42)