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 redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#TSR 2103 – MC2 – Monstrous Compendium Volume Two (1989). Editors can decide whether anything should be merged anywhere from the history. Sandstein 12:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hag (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | 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 and lacks any kind of independent notability. Pure gamecruft that is almost entirely primary sourced. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, where at least one of the two secondary sources the article contains now can be of benefit. Daranios ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to hag. This is just a particular case of the popular cultural conception of the magical kind of hag. BD2412 T 22:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Nearly every source on the creatures are just game products. The few that are not are not close to being enough actual coverage that could sustain any kind of article, or support any information worth preserving. There is nothing to indicate why the D&D version of a hag is notable enough that it would need to be discussed on the main hag article as suggested above, so I see no reason to merge there. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I see comments along the lines that this is almost entirely primary sourced, or that nearly every source is a game product. However, it is not entirely primary sourced, so it can meet the much lower noteworthiness standards for inclusion in the parent article even if it wouldn't sustain an article on its own. It is, at least, a commentary on the continuing presence of the hag as a cultural concept that it has been included and expanded upon at various times in the most popular role playing game ever. BD2412 T 21:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. Not seeing anything worthwile merging there, through no objections if someone wants to add to popculture that this was the n-th most something monster on some niche list, I guess. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Most of the article is certainly bog-standard fancruft, but two things make me hesitate to push the delete button: first, the section on publication history is well put-together and I don't see an obvious fan venue for this material; second, the Reception section has the critter as #3 of The 9 Scariest, Most Unforgettable Monsters From Dungeons & Dragons: if the taste of the author, Lisa Granshaw, is respected in the D&D community, that would count for me as an argument for inclusion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I think there's general agreement that listicles do not constitute significant coverage if they are all that exist to demonstrate notability. Pretty much every fictional monster is going to be in at least one listicle at some point. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 13:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Nope, the agreement is not general. In my opinion, that would depend on the amount and quality of content in listicle(s). A " listicle" is by definition an article, and the same criteria like for any other kind of article should apply. Daranios ( talk) 20:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to either Hag or List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 23:01, 8 March 2020 (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.