Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulette (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulette

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable creature that fails WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussions did not advance reliable sources, instead arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE while solely citing primary sources and lacking any independent sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of game books, I'm only really finding sources in the same couple of books that always get brought up in these discussions, "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" and the "Art and Arcana" book. The former is just a straight description of the monster's appearance and behavior in the game with no kind of out-of-game discussion. And the latter, in addition to the contested state of its independence as a source (it is an officially licensed D&D product), consists of extremely minimal coverage - literally two sentences and a picture. Outside of those books, there's a few brief mentions in some articles, which are all basically just stating the same couple of sentences of the creature being based on a plastic model, and that is it. There is is not enough coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would support an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is treated in secondary sources:

The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Aside from the descriptions as stated by Rorshacma it analyzes the in-game use and provides a very short reception, which I have added to the article.
Art and Arcana, again as described by Rorshacma, focuses on the artistic rendering
The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters: Very short entry, but gives the creative origin, which appears in more detail in the EN World column.
Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers has a more extensive review with emphasis about how the bulette was presented early in the game.

Then there's a number of internet articles, presumably of varying importance, and appearances in other media:

Critical Hits Studios uses this: [1], [2]
Internet publisher Bell of Lost Souls has a review
Appearane in the video game is provided by Gamespot already in the article, there's non-D&D role-playing games, and the origami version was already suitably defended in the last nomination.

I think that in total meets WP:N. If this is not judged sufficient in the end, I obviously prefer a merge to deletion. Daranios (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and Daranios. Doesn't need a standalone article. But should not be outright deleted per WP:PRESERVE, and because the ensuing redirect is a solid search term, and redirects are cheap. oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, extensive publication history means it probably deserves a mention there, even though it does not deserve a standalone article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the topic has plenty of coverage in reliable secondary sources noted above. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:33, 7 May 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.