List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters: This should really have been ineligible for WP:REFUND , as it only applies to discussions with "little to no participation".  It continues to have the same major issues as last time it was nominated for deletion.  Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons was created as the one main list for any actually notable creatures within the game.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Games .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after vast improvement in sourcing over the condition it was in at time of the first AFD .  The article now contains a significant amount of independently sourced content on the concept of monsters in 3rd edition in general and on specific monsters as well.  Failing that, there is significant potential for improvement and this should be moved back Draft rather than deleted again.  BOZ ( talk ) 03:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It sounds like your vote should be draftify PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really, I meant Keep as my primary position.  To counter the claims that this violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE / WP:NOTDATABASE , this is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in specific official D&D 3rd edition books.  It is a sortable drop-down list for a single edition because a list for monsters of all editions would be too big.  Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries, as clearly shown in this article.   These independent sources provide context with referenced explanations.  The majority of the content for each monster goes beyond plot summary-only descriptions of the monsters in question.  These sources discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of these monsters in addition to concise summaries.  These are likewise not excessive listings of statistics that lack context or explanation as each entry contains very little in-game statistical information, and do include explanatory text providing context.  It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game.  These gameplay concepts as a whole and many individually are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context.  With the independent sources provided, this list serves an important encyclopedic purpose for readers to better understand the subjects individually and as a whole.  This is more than a simple listing without context, which has been adequately supplied as to which elements of the game these came from and when they were published.  It also provides a timeline of the game over several years, which provides an inherent context to the growth and establishment of the game over time.  This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game.  The fact that more of the entries currently lack independent sources is something likely to change over time given how many have been added the amount of time that this was in draft space, and I believe that in time this list will continue to improve if it remains in article space.  BOZ ( talk ) 06:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nomination above is faulty, in providing no self-contained deletion rationale, only referring to a prior discussion's deletion rationales which turn out to be bogus.  Here's the original: "Badly sourced list of mostly non-notable fictional creatures. Most of the monsters in the lists are not individually notable, and most don't even have any description besides their names".  1) The current version of the article has 120 sources and growing.  2) WP:Notability applies to what may have its own stand-alone article, and does not control list entries; that's the purview of WP:NOT polilcy, in particular WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE , WP:NOT#DATABASE , and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE for content like this.  While some lists have WP:LISTCRITERIA that limit their entries to notable ones, this is not such a list.  3) About half the entries have descriptions now, and more could be added at any time; this is a classic "argument to avoid", namely WP:IMPATIENT .  In short, none of those three points from the original nomination are deletion rationales applicable to this article (and the latter two of them were never deletion rationales at all, while the first one about sourcing arguably wasn't either, but another form of IMPATIENT.  (There's no real question that AD&D and major characters from it, as a class, pass WP:GNG , so that is not the kind of sourcing question that was ever at issue here. Rather, the original nom was concerned that specific entries were not sourced except to primary material.)  But there are some reasons from NOT which probably apply.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:GAMEGUIDE is a self-contained rationale, regardless of what the previous nomination said.  As there is already a list with the  most notable monster examples, the purpose of this separate list would appear to be a guide to all monsters in this edition regardless of importance.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notwithstanding my above criticism of the nomination, I'll go with deletion on this, for substantively just re-creating previously deleted content without demonstrably encyclopedic improvement, and failure of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE , WP:NOT#DATABASE , and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE : This indiscriminately lists every single official AD&D 3 monster without any regard to whether they are of encyclopedic interest, which is in effect making an AD&D monster database, which is not what this site is for, and without any purpose that seems distinct from writing game-guide material, also not what this site is for.  This article has had a fair amount of work put into it, and should be ported probably to a D&D-focused wiki at Wikia or Fandom or whatever it is called now.  I don't see a point of in locally draftifying this again, as it seems unlikely to ever be able to jump these three NOT hurdles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters , or Weak keep but rename .  Weak keep b/c I expect this topic meets NLIST, per common sense.  Now.  First, I've created a redirect from List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters to here.  Second, I think D&D can have one monster list - but why for 3rd edition only?  This list should be renamed to the redirect created.  Third, see some prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters .  Fourth, consider (partial) merger with Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Notable_monsters .  I say partial, because I am partial to idea of keeping both articles, but some content in the Monster... article seems to be very listy and should be moved to the list.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Note this subject certainly meets WP:NLIST . While any edition or box set likely meets NLIST, I do think Piotrus' approach is probably the best one for the encyclopedia moving forward -- it seems likely that our approach should be to have a single list across all editions.   My big fear is that re-deletion here means we won't be able to take a multi-year-multi-editor approach to improving this notable topic, and instead we'll keep going back and forth between good faith low quality like this and deleted lists.  In other words, WP:IMPERFECT is the way such articles get built over time.  The Special:diff/918797929/1176197514 between last AfD and this AfD shows how these articles can and do improve over time.  There is sourcing here that will be valuable to the future incarnations of the list including sourcing not specific to the 3rd edition.  This sourcing also gets us out of GAMEGUIDE territory.  Lastly, given the provided context and RS, I don't think any of the 4 INDISCRIMINATE/NOTDATABASE points apply here in the articles' current incarnation.   — siro χ o 07:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The list appears to be sufficiently sourced i.e. it's not just lifted from the indexes of various 3e monster books.  Cortador ( talk ) 8:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Keep The parent topic, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons , is certainly notable , and so this list fullfills WP:LISTN .  It is split by edition as a natural (chronological) dividing line to avoid too large a size, which makes sense to me.  In my view it does not fail WP:GAMEGUIDE , because it is not "walk-throughs and detailed coverage", but rather "concise summary" plus commentary relating to real-world based on a number of secondary sources.  Of course there still is a large number of uncommented entries, but as the improvements as compared to the last deletion discussions show, these can be and are remedied step by step.  It makes sense to me to keep what's been based on primary sources in the spirit of WP:IMPERFECT , as described by Siroxo .  Overall, I agree with BOZ 's reasoning. It also has to be said that the article as is has been approved by a neutral editor through the WP:AfC process. Daranios ( talk ) 10:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I just want to point out that all the comments stating that this list has sources outside of official gamebooks, and thus passes WP:LISTN are flawed, as most of those non-primary sources are really not on the concept of 3rd Edition D&D monsters at all. Some very specific entries (and, considering the immense number of entries in this list, a relatively small number) have sources discussing them or their origins, and that's it. And on top of that, those sources are generally not on their 3rd Edition incarnations specifically, but just the monster in general as its appeared throughout D&D as a whole. And that's not even considering that many of those sources come from "Top Ten" churnalism style lists from sites like ScreenRant, that very often are not considered valid sources for establishing notability. There's also the fact that almost all of the blue-linked entries here simply redirect to other "Lists of D&D monsters", most commonly the extremely similar List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters . These facts really lend credence to the idea that a singular list of notable D&D monsters combining the sources and information from these various other lists is what should exist, not these massive separate lists like this one that, quite honestly is barely more than the table of contents of the official 3rd Edition monster manuals. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uh oh, we certainly should merge this with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters . And any other lists. One list of D&D monsters is all I can imagine myself supporting, not more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus. But as an uninvolved, non D&D playing editor, it seems redundant to have multiple lists of characters from the same gaming franchise. But of course, I'll carry out whatever action the consensus deems appropriate which is in line with Wikipedia policies. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or partial merge to a full article about the series. This fails WP:LISTN , and Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR . Even so, it wouldn't make sense to break these articles apart by editions, and the lack of sources makes that WP:OR . It's possible that some of these concepts have some coverage, but it looks to be short of WP:SIGCOV .  Something like Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons would be an appropriate place to put this, with more encyclopedic coverage about the topic instead of WP:OR from primary sources.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Notable_monsters (though, that section itself is getting to be kind of mess that desperately needed curation and cleanup at this point) - After thinking on it for a while, I have to concur with some other comments here.  While monsters in D&D may be a notable idea, we should not have multiple redundant lists for different versions of the game, and any kind of singular list we do have should be curated and limited to genuinely notable examples (i.e. ones that have their own articles like Beholders or ones that have genuine non-primary coverage beyond having a couple sentence mentioned in churnalism "top ten" articles).  That singular list should most certainly not be an indiscriminate list of every monster that ever appeared in the history of D&D with minutia going as far as listing the exact books and page numbers they appeared in.  An article or list should not simply be the transcription of the table of contents of official D&D books.  Ideally, my idea would be that both this page and List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters be eliminated as stand alone pages, and Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Notable_monsters be cleaned up.  At that point, if that section becomes too long, then it can be split out into a single list of notable D&D monsters.  But, most of that is a decision that goes beyond the scope of this AFD, so for this AFD here, my stance is that this list should not have been restored after its last AFD resulted in Deletion, and should be either re-deleted or used as a redirect to the main article on the topic.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an essential element of a notable edition of a notable game.  Too hefty to be merged into a parent list.  Cas Liber ( talk · contribs ) 22:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The arguments for deletion are  a) it should not have been given a WP:REFUND and  b) it violates WP:GAMEGUIDE .   The argument against REFUND does not stand;  there were only 4 votes and 1 comment in the previous deletion argument;  4 votes constitutes "little or no participation".   That leaves GAMEGUIDE.   The text for GAMEGUIDE states "A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry"; I would argue that the list of monsters, appropriately annotated with references and other relevant details, is both "concise" and "essential to the understanding of the game" and also demonstrates its history over time and therefore its significance to the industry.  Vulcan's Forge ( talk ) 03:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further Comment I am not sure I would recommend or agree merging this with the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ;  the 2nd and 3rd editions of the game are effectively not the same game, nor were they published at the same time.   Merging those two would create a very large list and there would be significant issues in how to format and display the merged data (there is overlap between the two editions, but not complete duplication).  Vulcan's Forge ( talk ) 03:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm afraid that I can't agree that listing every monster that was ever published in each version of the game, the majority of which are not annotated with references, is in the least bit concise.  And yes, the existence of monsters in D&D is certainly essential to understanding the game, but I would like to hear further explanation as to why a list of every monster in the game is "essential to understanding the game".  The argument that merging with other similar lists having issues with size would be solved by simply not listing every non-notable creature from each edition .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 04:32, 30 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus