513:. SnowFire makes good points about why this shouldn't be flatly deleted, as does BOZ with their citings of policy. Subject matter like this is unfortunately going to be mostly reliant on primary sources, but that on its own does not make this or any other topic non-notable. I believe this list should be heavily scaled down, and its edition sections moved to subsections of the Character class article's edition sections. The mechanical descriptions of most of these classes are not needed, and it would probably be better to only mention the more widely-known classes in prose; the sections on Original, AD&D 1e, and Basic do this well, and can be easily integrated as-is. Everything below that is a mess of tables and cruft, but I believe it can all be written following that style. (For example, the 3e/3.5e section can include one sentence about the classes introduced in
525:, another covering the "Complete X" series of books, one for "Tome of X", and so on. The 5e section might be discarded entirely, since the Character class article already includes a mention of Artificer and where it was released; nothing more than that is needed.) This requires significant cleanup, but the material here has a clear home.
634:. That's the true problem with most of these D&D articles, and why they're better off on another wiki - rarely will you find any truly secondary coverage, most "secondary" coverage is actually from players of the game, as if football players were also journalists for the games in which they played.
562:
So there's the policy-and-guideline-based argument. Now here's the question that the nom has never answered. How does removing this information improve the encyclopedia? How is having a less-comprehensive coverage of a subject via focused sub-pages in any way an improvement of the project as a whole?
577:
It improves the project because if there are no limits on the notability requirements for inclusion, Knowledge would be flooded by irrelevant, original-research material, making it nigh-impossible to concentrate on what is actually notable and improve on it. We have to draw lines somewhere, and this
410:
that cover the matter and show notability? Now, this is a spinoff article created to not glom the main article up with all the "asterisk" cases, so references are inherently spottier, per
Rorshacma above. The sources clearly exist in the current article but there's way too much
419:
classes. That said, insert usual "AFD is not cleanup" comment here - help with cleanup and additional sources would be good, and maybe even a merge-back to the parent
Character class article if this is truly unfixable, but deletion is probably over the top.
658:
A false analogy. That's like saying the we can't use reporting by car magazines because the writers drive to work, or that we can't use food magazines because the writers eat. Or that we can't use medical texts because they're written by doctors.
213:
611:
indiscriminate. It has a very specific and fixed criteria for inclusion and is a subtopic of a topic that is well covered and notable. There's nothing here that crosses any lines, let alone ones that are made up whole cloth by the nomination.
724:
per SnowFire and KarasuGamma - I'm sure this belongs on a Wiki, but not on
Knowledge. It's either unacceptable listcruft with no notability or a game manual. But if there are useful sources, then we can transplant them to the proper page.
673:
The real analogy here would be making an article about a car model that is solely referenced to the car manufacturer's website and marketing materials. If there is nobody else talking about it besides the manufacturer, it's not considered
248:
content. Sourced to primary sources, tweets, and other things that are inadmissible on their own without reliable secondary sources. Written by fans for fans and doesn't put anything in real world context. Fails notability criteria.
390:
139:
134:
143:
405:
and nominees there, and you can find all sorts of weird stuff from fans of the history of New
Netherlands, or 1920 US politics, or Eurovision. Okay, that aside... the real criteria is references - are there
294:
126:
207:
56:. Disregarding the standard copypasta by BOZ, there's consensus to not keep this, but no consensus to merge. Redirection allows editors to figure out whether and what should be merged from the history.
270:
707:
not seeing enough sources to support an independent article about this topic. As a suggestion, you could summarize it and include it in an existing article about the character classes.
372:. Even if the concept of alternative character classes in D&D were notable (which by all appearances, it is not), this excessively crufty list would still not be appropriate.
130:
173:
122:
74:
368:
article. There are also no reliable, independent sources that I can find that discuss the concept of this multitude of "Alternative classes" as a group, so it fails
393:, so it's consistent that Zxcvbnm also believes this topic should go too. I'll repeat from the earlier AFD that nom's comment about "written by fans for fans" is
166:
397:
and is essentially meaningless (only topics that nobody likes written by people who don't care are allowed on
Knowledge? what?). Knowledge is good precisely
228:
342:
318:
195:
113:
98:
734:
716:
687:
668:
653:
621:
595:
572:
539:
501:
466:
429:
381:
353:
334:
310:
286:
262:
68:
189:
554:
510:
442:
365:
53:
557:, an article that has already been kept by consensus at AfD. (Re) merging would not be appropriate as it would make the main article too long.
185:
648:
496:
235:
364:- Very few of the individual entries are independently notable, and the few that could be considered to be are already covered at the
482:
in spite of its many sources, as those all appear unreliable or not secondary. This is probably on the wrong wiki, to be honest.
93:
86:
17:
201:
578:
article is clearly over that line. If this clearly indiscriminate list is allowed to stay, we might as well just allow
107:
103:
415:
and not enough secondary sources as they stand. Additionally, the article could do with some trimming to just the
751:
40:
712:
640:
488:
604:
747:
708:
515:
36:
664:
631:
617:
568:
521:
377:
245:
221:
635:
483:
450:
425:
389:, albeit somewhat weakly / with conditions. Please see arguments (on both sides) at the similar
730:
681:
589:
550:
412:
346:
328:
304:
280:
256:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
746:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
626:
It's actually not well covered - it's a regurgitation of primary source material which fails
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
528:
627:
479:
369:
401:
it covers all sorts of obscure topics seemingly only of interest to fans - go check out
660:
613:
564:
373:
59:
582:. Relative toenail size of a certain game's monsters? Yup, allowed, because it exists.
475:
462:
454:
421:
402:
726:
677:
585:
446:
407:
324:
300:
276:
252:
160:
563:
Just trotting out a link to a project page does not answer that question at all.
458:
391:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)
54:
Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#Alternative base classes
295:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
742:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
526:
271:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
156:
152:
148:
220:
123:List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes
75:List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
754:). No further edits should be made to this page.
341:Note: This discussion has been included in the
317:Note: This discussion has been included in the
293:Note: This discussion has been included in the
269:Note: This discussion has been included in the
234:
8:
630:which fails the spirit if not the letter of
607:is your argument then. This list is clearly
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
343:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
340:
319:list of Games-related deletion discussions
316:
292:
268:
555:Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)
511:Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)
443:Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)
366:Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)
7:
445:per above comments since there are
24:
519:, one sentence about those from
99:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
771:
744:Please do not modify it.
735:06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
540:05:03, 05 May 2020 (UTC)
69:07:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
717:20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
688:18:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
669:17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
654:15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
622:13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
596:20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
573:18:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
502:01:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
467:04:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
430:01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
395:not a deletion criteria
382:23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
354:20:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
335:19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
311:19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
287:19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
263:19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
605:Slippery slope fallacy
553:-style split off from
474:This appears to fail
87:Articles for deletion
516:Player's Handbook II
522:Oriental Adventures
685:
593:
356:
337:
332:
313:
308:
289:
284:
260:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
67:
762:
676:
651:
643:
584:
543:
531:
499:
491:
408:reliable sources
351:
323:
299:
275:
251:
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
66:
64:
57:
34:
770:
769:
765:
764:
763:
761:
760:
759:
758:
752:deletion review
705:Delete or merge
686:
647:
639:
594:
529:
495:
487:
449:to retain, per
347:
333:
309:
285:
261:
181:
172:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
768:
766:
757:
756:
738:
737:
719:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
675:
599:
598:
583:
559:
558:
544:
504:
469:
432:
384:
358:
357:
338:
322:
314:
298:
290:
274:
250:
242:
241:
178:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
767:
755:
753:
749:
745:
740:
739:
736:
732:
728:
723:
720:
718:
714:
710:
709:Shooterwalker
706:
703:
702:
689:
683:
679:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
657:
656:
655:
652:
650:
644:
642:
637:
636:SportingFlyer
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
606:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
591:
587:
581:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
542:
541:
537:
534:
532:
524:
523:
518:
517:
512:
508:
505:
503:
500:
498:
492:
490:
485:
484:SportingFlyer
481:
477:
473:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
418:
414:
409:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
385:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
355:
352:
350:
344:
339:
336:
330:
326:
320:
315:
312:
306:
302:
296:
291:
288:
282:
278:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
258:
254:
247:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
175:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
743:
741:
721:
704:
646:
638:
632:WP:GAMECRUFT
608:
579:
546:
538:
535:
533:
520:
514:
506:
494:
486:
471:
438:
434:
416:
398:
394:
386:
361:
349:CAPTAIN RAJU
348:
246:WP:GAMEGUIDE
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
451:WP:PRESERVE
208:free images
551:WP:SUMMARY
413:WP:PRIMARY
62:Sandstein
748:talk page
661:oknazevad
614:oknazevad
565:oknazevad
374:Rorshacma
37:talk page
750:or in a
674:notable.
628:WP:LISTN
580:anything
480:WP:LISTN
422:SnowFire
417:relevant
370:WP:LISTN
167:View log
108:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
727:Ikjbagl
678:ZXCVBNM
586:ZXCVBNM
399:because
325:ZXCVBNM
301:ZXCVBNM
277:ZXCVBNM
253:ZXCVBNM
214:WP refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
476:WP:GNG
472:Delete
455:WP:ATD
403:WP:DYK
362:Delete
186:Google
144:delete
722:Merge
549:as a
507:Merge
447:WP:RS
439:merge
244:Pure
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
731:talk
713:talk
682:TALK
665:talk
618:talk
590:TALK
569:talk
547:Keep
463:talk
453:and
435:Keep
426:talk
387:Keep
378:talk
329:TALK
305:TALK
281:TALK
257:TALK
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
609:not
530:烏Γ
509:to
459:BOZ
441:to
437:or
236:TWL
165:– (
52:to
733:)
715:)
667:)
620:)
571:)
527:—
465:)
457:.
428:)
380:)
345:.
321:.
297:.
273:.
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
729:(
711:(
684:)
680:(
663:(
649:C
645:·
641:T
616:(
592:)
588:(
567:(
536:│
497:C
493:·
489:T
478:/
461:(
424:(
376:(
331:)
327:(
307:)
303:(
283:)
279:(
259:)
255:(
240:)
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:·
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.