Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons)

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 no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement about the quality of the sources, most importantly whether they are WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY. A merge to Gnome was discussed, but no consensus on that either. The merge discussion can continue on the talk pages if people feel the need. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable race that fails WP:GNG. PROD was reverted as "notable enough", however the article is sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources and reads like a WP:GAMEGUIDE. There are only passing mentions of gnomes in secondary sources, enough for a mention in Gnome#Games perhaps, but not for a full article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the monster manual. There is no notable coverage of the subject in secondary sources. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gnome#Games where they are already mentioned. Searching for sources brings up a lot of primary sources, a lot of non-reliable sources, and a lot of very brief mentions in sources that do little more than establish that they are a player race in the game. Nothing that actually allows them to pass the WP:GNG needed to maintain an independent article. As the article is entirely comprised of in-game information sourced only to primary sources, I see nothing to merge, but the history will remain if others feel otherwise. Rorshacma (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Gnome per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge to Gnome~~ per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons). BD2412 T 02:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dwarves AfD is still open, so cannot refer to its outcome, but also as someone who argued for keep there, I would say this is not the same at all and I have gone with delete here. There are no secondary sources demonstrating notability in this case, and although Gnomes are a player race now they were not always and do not have the same notable and iconic status that was argued for dwarves. Each case must be taken on its merits, so any argument for keeping this article must demonstrate significant and sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. If there is no such coverage, then this fails WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the deletion discussion on Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) was closed with result Keep inbetween, I think that was what BD2412 was referring to, but has be reopened since. Daranios (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has now closed again, as keep again. BD2412 T 00:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: While the article now has only primary sources, interestingly one of the major sources brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), Tresca, Michael J. (November 2010). "One: The Lord of the Rings". The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. McFarland. ISBN 978-0786458950., has several paragraphs on p. 35-36 on the D&D gnomes and their influence on other games, with more paragraphs for the creative origins for Tolkien's gnomes and their differences to the D&D version on p. 34-35. More mentions for gnomes in D&D computer games later on. So one significant source down. I would be surprised if there were not more treatment of this race at least in the game's reviews. Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds at least mentions Dragonlance gnomes. Daranios (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, found another one thanks to Google search: Bowman, Sarah Lynne (May 2010). The Functions of Role-Playing Games. McFarland. ISBN 978-0786447107. on p. 151 does not only describe the gnome with subraces in some detail, but gives real-world inspirations and how the game's gnomes differ from them. On p. 165/166 the book talks about how D&D concept of the gnome race can feature in a psychological case. I see WP:GNG fulfilled, even if the article's current status does not show it yet, and change my opinion to keep. Daranios (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a minor mention in Of Dice and Men by David M. Ewalt. Daranios (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Current sourcing seems insufficient to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to ask those who wanted to delete the article based on lack of significant sources to consider the two major and two minor sources which have been added (at least as Further Reading) since. Thanks a lot. Daranios (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per policy, what matters at AfD is not the current state of the article - much less the state of the article when it was nominated - but rather the actually existing coverage in reliable sources. This we documentably have. Also, GAMEGUIDE does not in any way apply to tabletop RPGs, so I am tired of people citing it irrelevant at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2020 (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.