Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No reception or analysis, just a short publication history and a longer plot summary with some OR thrown in here and there. WP:GNG failure as written and nothing in my BEFORE, I fear. Not sure where to redirect this but if anyone has an idea, I’d support it per WP:ATD-R. PS. I did not notice the prior AfD. Sources may exist, but nobody bothered to use them in five years. This suggests they are not usable after all. Feel free to prove me wrong by using them; otherwise I believe soft deleting this with redirect might finally motivate someone. Currently what we have is 99% WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:54, 21 September 2025 (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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I hate to be a jerk, but AfD is not cleanup. If you agree the sources are there, sending it to AfD because the sources are not in the article isn’t the way this works. You don’t get to tell others they need to fix something–fix it yourself. If you believe the sources that have been found are not enough for WP:N, then please justify that. In any case, per the prior AfD, this topic meets WP:N and some pretty good sources exist. I agree that article could use some work. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The relationship of your BEFORE to sources found in prior AfD is not clear, nor is a compelling argument advanced that the sources already identified are, in aggregate, inadequate per NEXIST. Please ping me if a more compelling argument that sources identified don’t meet GNG is made. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 34 references in the article given, so I don’t understand “sources may exist”. —Cyfal (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no valid place to merge them to and there seems to be some slight passing of GNG here. I wouldn’t likely oppose merging them to a list of D&D races if there was one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like in the last deletion discussion, while there is not an enormous amount of sources I believe they are fine to establish a full article, but obviously still need to be used. Otherwise I am much on the same page as Hobit. There are innumerable points in Wikipedia which could use attention. Anyone else is no more required to fix any of them more than the one identifying the problem. WP:ARTN, WP:NOEFFORT, and WP:JUSTFIXIT tell us that when dealing with a specific incomplete article which can be fixed, the productive solution is to not to bind energy of editors in a deletion discussion, but to just use the identified sources to just fix the problem oneself, if it aligns with one’s prioirities, or to leave it until it does. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]