The result was Redirect. Anything worth merging will remain in history. Note that many of the arguments to keep the articles were merely procedural (e.g. bad faith nomination, not enough time to find sources) and so were discounted. Should further reliable sources surface to support the notability of any of the redirected articles they can of course be restored in the future as with any other deleted or redirected article. The struck out articles are considered to have their nomination withdrawn. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Also the following articles:
Originally redirects, these were turned into articles with a back and forth between article and redirect. These articles have absolutely zero independent third-party sources. These are all creatures from Dungeons and Dragons, and all of the sources are from publishers for that game system (including Necromancer Games, who "...uses the third edition of the Dungeons and Dragons rule system"). Books published specifically to be used for a game system are not independent sources for that game system; there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources: the sourcebooks for the game itself. These articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. Sudo Ghost 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The convention with these large multiple nominations is, when established good faith users ask for them to be unbundled and considered individually, this is done. Close without result this AfD, but SudoGhost or anyone else is at liberty to list them separately. No more than half a dozen at a time, please, because swamping a WikiProject that has a limited number of editors with large amounts of AfD work all at once is inconsiderate.— S Marshall T/ C 23:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
What's polite and conflict de-escalating is to listen to Sangrolu. He says some of the topics are notable and others aren't. Therefore he's claiming that there are independent sources. Isn't he? And since he has made that claim, it's polite to assume he isn't lying, and it's conflict de-escalating to give him time to find and go through the sources he claims exist.
Is there some pressing reason why we need to keep all 23 articles bundled into one discussion?— S Marshall T/ C 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply
How do I know? Because I'm 41 years old, which is old enough to remember when the Dungeons and Dragons craze swept the world (late 1970's and early 1980s). I remember going into my local newsagent to buy a newspaper, and seeing two or three D&D-related magazines on the shelf. And I'm British, so these weren't the TSR in-house magazine; they were editorially independent 'zines run by separate publishers. I'm thinking of White Dwarf Magazine, Imagine, etc. And the thing you need to understand about these sources is that they won't be online. You will not be able to google and find them. But it's entirely possible that Sangrolu has copies in his attic or basement, isn't it?
Now, if I understand this correctly, a D&D "monster" is (conceptually speaking) not really a work of fiction. It's a kind of gaming piece, represented by a small pewter figurine which the D&D player is supposed to paint, and defined by various numerical characteristics as well as a little free text, which is "fought" by other players in a sort of tabletop wargame. Which means there is, potentially, something to say about it outside the fictional game world. You might have articles about the tactical aspects of defeating one of these things.
This is why I find Sangrolu's claims entirely plausible and feel his request should be honoured.— S Marshall T/ C 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Please note that I do not own these sources and have not checked them. I am not saying that I know these monsters are independently sourceable, because I do not. My position is simply that I think it's possible and that Sangrolu should have the chance to make his case.— S Marshall T/ C 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply
There's a three-stage process going on here. 1) Deny that any sources exist. 2) When it's shown that sources exist, find some basis to deny that they count. (The argument boils down to "It may be by a separate company but that company's selling to D&D's market, therefore there's a COI!", which is a contention you should probably run by WT:RS. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've never seen that particular line of argument succeed at AfD.) 3) When your contention that they don't count is challenged, claim the challenge is invalid. I don't really approve, and I think this point-blank refusal to unbundle is tendentious.— S Marshall T/ C 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply