Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarrasque (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 merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tarrasque (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Tarrasque (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only mention of this creature is in assorted "top-10" listicles (of which literally every monster in D&D is mentioned at some point) and a single article at Game Rant. Sources in the article are entirely WP:PRIMARY from books published by the game's creators or simply WP:OR from fans of the game. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. What independent coverage there is is low quality and does not meet GNG. buidhe 16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. As one of the most well-known original D&D monsters, I'm actually surprised at the lack of sources talking about it. But, I really can't find anything outside of the typical "Top Ten" lists and primary sources. There are a few name-drops in articles making predictions for future seasons of Stranger Things, but that's not really coverage of the creature itself, and is nothing but speculation. The creature is, though, one of the few D&D creatures that I think would be appropriate to be included in the main article of D&D monsters, though. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

original monsters? Hardly. I have all the first-edition books and it's not in any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had actually meant "original" as in "not taken from pre-existing source", but even then, I had completely blanked on the fact that it was actually named after a legendary creature, probably because its D&D depiction is so wildly different than the source. Either way, I was wrong, so I've stricken that part of my comment. :) Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. DnD fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as per Rorshacma Daranios (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete? A compromise "redirect" doesn't work right now because the subject is not covered in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect - The topic does not establish notability, and the listicles are extremely trivial. It seems like it'd eventually be cut when the list inevitably gets too large the first time around, but someone can merge it at their discretion after if they so choose. TTN (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, the article fails GNG, consisting of primary sources and trivial “Top X” lists. But if editors think this is important enough to be on the main article, than it should be covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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.