Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druid (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 keep. Even allowing for due caution, this seems to be an appropriate case for WP:SNOW. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Druid (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Appears to be fake and not notable. Appears only have in world context and sources are not WP:RS compliant Testmasterflex (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Fake"? You mean, it really didn't appear in all those books mentioned in the Publication history section running back through the entire history of the game? "Not notable" is questionable as well, as there are a few independent sources cited and likely more exist. "Only in world context" - did you not notice the publication history section? It ain't perfect, but it's far from unfixable. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure I follow the nominator's points, but this D&D character class is well known, appears in several editions of the game and in other works about it. Goochelaar (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sources exist.[1][2][3][4] A nice little sourced article can be created, it will take a lexisnexis account and physically reading a bunch of 25 year old magazine to get there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major character class in four editions of the game.SPNic (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it cut from one edition and returned in the next? Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable D&D character class. Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator should be made aware that there is a big difference between a playable character class and a run-of-the-mill monster in D&D. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly could use some cleanup, better sourcing, etc., but this isn't like an individual D&D monster. This class has been in most (all?) editions of the game, usually in the core rulebooks, and it is an essential part of D&D's history. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what's supposed to be "fake" about this; as an established element in the D&D game, it surely exists, and the sources document it. In a philosophical sense, game rules are in fact supremely reliable, more reliable than the best accepted findings of history or science. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (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.