Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:51, 22 August 2007

Dungeons & Dragons creatures

(View log)

A long list of Dungeons and Dragons creatures that have no references beyond the monstrous manuals from which they spring (and the occasional mention in the affiliated magazine Dragon). No evidence of independent importance (i.e. notability)-Eyrian 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as these pages are sourced and refer to topics that are of interest to a significant proportion of the population. I also don't see a reason to delete in what was stated.OcciMoron 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTE. The subjects of these articles are not notable, as they do not have any independent sources. --Eyrian 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with WP:NOTE. Given that there are 30 years of books by various authors that are based on the sources for these articles, many of which feature these monsters prominently (either rulebooks for the game in its various incarnations or novels based on said books), these articles provide valuable reference material for those curious about the significance of these creatures in a large corpus of fantasy material. Perhaps keep and merge into a single article is a better idea? All of these articles are very long, however, so that might not be the best solution.OcciMoron 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem not. Notability requires independent sources. Monstrous manuals released by TSR/WotC simply don't count. Neither do licensed novels. There needs to be some kind of article or book that refers to these creatures that is not affiliated with Dungeons and Dragons. --Eyrian 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is www.rpg.net sufficient? Or should I cite the hundreds of non-WotC or TSR publications that relate to these monsters, made by third-party companies? There are also references to Dungeons and Dragons in popular songs, television shows, news articles, blogs, etc. etc. etc. I think if you cannot find independent coverage, you aren't looking very hard.OcciMoron 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the coverage. As for those references, perhaps you're looking for the deleted List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references. Things that relate to these monsters (How is that relation determined? ) are unlikely to contain substantial coverage in any kind of independent source. They are just not notable. --Eyrian 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"They are just not notable [to Eyrian]." Clearly you don't think they deserve to be on wikipedia; when presented with a way to find independent sources, you are just doubting the existence of such sources. The Dungeons and Dragon game is an Open Standard, and so independent publishing companies have released many books based on the original three core rulebooks, using much of the mythos to produce their own adventures, sourcebooks, etc, or expanding upon material covered in those original books. Simply because you have not encountered these sources does not provide grounds for deletion, no matter how many times you keep saying "It's just not notable." Please try to add more to the discussion with each comment, rather than only reiterating your past comments.OcciMoron 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're opening a COLOSSAL can of worms here. There are dozens if not hundreds of D&D-creatures-related articles in Wikipedia. I truly lament the workload of any poor ~~rube~~ admin ~~conned into~~ persuaded to delete them all. --Agamemnon2 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that if these articles are deleted, then it's only fair that Template:Infobox D&D creature is deleted forthwith as well, as should Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures with all its contents. Given the popularity of the topic of D&D among Wikipedians, all the major offenders should also be WP:SALTed with extreme prejudice and the utmost impoliteness. Unless you want to do this all over again when the wheel turns another spin. --Agamemnon2 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, why stop at monsters? Just look at Category:Dungeons & Dragons character classes! If these articles on trial here now are deemed deletion-worthy, then surely all these others must follow the same logical progression? Oh, and then there's the literally thousands of internal links we need to remove linking to all these articles, and even more templates, like Template:Dungeons & Dragons character class, too! Alas, I do not envy the lot of the administrator, with his mop and bucket, trying to clean this mess. --Agamemnon2 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I mention the dozens of categories that would need to be depopulated and deleted, all requiring admin manpower? Still, I guess we have no choice, by WP:NOTE and all... --Agamemnon2 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR :) OcciMoron 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it, given time. --Eyrian 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well... that sounds like quite the campaign you've got planned there... My opinion is that it's an unnecessary one, however. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most chivalrous. That should only keep you busy for, oh, every evening for the next two months or so. Don't forget Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities, either! I just know those articles would fail WP:NOTE. All 200 of them. --Agamemnon2 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A group nomination for 200 articles shouldn't take more than two hours; one for reading, one for nominating. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. --Eyrian 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True, true. And then there's the deletion of categories, salting the most likely to be bona fide recreated, explaining the hows and whys of the decision to the relevant projects, who I'm sure would be, well, livid. And then there's removal of redlinks, which any diligent deletionist should undertake after the AFD comes up trumps. --Agamemnon2 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant. --Eyrian 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because this is all about setting a potentially far-reaching precedent. Such discussions should not be handwaved away. I most empathically request only that which is fair, that due process is undertaken in these deletion discussions. My interest is merely in seeing the job done well, or not at all. Half-measures are, as I've divulged in a previous utterance, odious. --Agamemnon2 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent? That nonnotable articles should be deleted? --Eyrian 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That every single article related to Dungeons & Dragons that's not independently-sourced should be deleted. Since this includes hundreds of articles created bona fide, as well as numerous categories and templates, I feel it only prudent that special care is taken, especially since Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons appears not to have been consulted on the topic, which I should imagine would impact their bailiwick rather fiercely. --Agamemnon2 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, they knew. --Eyrian 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that that's a different case, as the AFD for that one clearly indicates that it was someone's fanwork monster that they had themselves uploaded. The difference between that and, say, a displacer beast (a monster with 30 years' history in the game) should be clear. --Agamemnon2 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Good, it should be. I warned people from day one about creating pages for every little monster, and this is a clear example of something that lacks notability.Piuro 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)" --Eyrian 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All that's telling me is that they have, as a project, some kind of consensus for notability, but it doesn't say what it is. It doesn't automatically mean they'd agree with your style of article management. Indeed, I would hazard a guess they wouldn't agree, since at least at least a few of the ones you have listed for deletion are rather major (as far as D&D monsters go), namely hobgoblins, angels and golems. I wouldn't be so quick to lend other people's support with such flimsy evidence. --Agamemnon2 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H e l l o . Mandsford 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Your quote doesn't counter Agamemnon2's statement; The "this" that Piuro is referring to was a fan-created entity. This has nothing to do with the entries you've listed above; and "Gorgon," "Centaur" et.al. are hardly "every little monster." If you want to relist those creatures that have no mention at all outside of a D&D setting, fine, that might be worth considering; but the bull-in-a-china-shop routine has me agreeing with Mister.Manticore below. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - References sections list several independent sources (magazines, websites, etc.) from different authors and publishing companies. Definitely no violation of WP:NOTE. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Name one. Dragon magazine is not independent. Neither is a licensed novel. Independent, in this case, means not published by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. --Eyrian 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

- (Edit Conflict) Merge in a list; notable monsters such (e.g.off the top of my head like the Beholder monster) should be kept as long as independent sources are found. It may be possible to merge some monsters with their more commonly known counterparts, like placing undead monsters in the Zombie article. I think the issue here is are D and D monsters in general notable, or just certain ones, or is it just D and D in general that's famous and notable?? Zidel333 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with moving this info to other articles (say, moving the content in Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) to Chimera) is that the mythology purists tend to delete such info from those pages. This is why I began creating separate articles to contain info on these creatures, and the mythology folks were fine with that and left them alone. I stopped creating such articles when dealing with overzealous deletionists become too much of a pain in the ass. BOZ 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - I think you're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. From WP:NOTE, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." I doubt you would dispute that each of the topics you've listed receives extensive coverage, and that's just IN the related material. As the user above mentioned, there are non-WotC or TSR publications involved also. Further, there is a large body of precedent for the individual aspects of largely notable works (e.g., the "Halo universe") receiving articles to discuss the details thereof. As I said above, there's no violation of the notability guideline here. ◄Zahakiel► 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The beholder might suffice as an article, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. And what would such a list look like? List of Dungeons and Dragons monsters? That would be enormous. Decades of Dragon and Dungeon, four (and a half) full rule revisions, dozens of supplement books... It'd never end. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. --Eyrian 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    - It's a pity, since the effort needed to expunge and WP:SALT all these articles (and I most empathically demand all or nothing; half-measures are odious) is, as stated above, immense.--Agamemnon2 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's not make an all or nothing argument, when the best thing to do would be to actually develop a position on what creatures merit coverage and why. That would be more likely to produce consensus here. Mister.Manticore 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right; the list would be enormous, but that's not the "notability" problem you've used as the foundation for this AfD. The sky isn't falling... the current articles are fine for covering all this data, and valid aspects of a hugely notable macro-topic. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close There's just too big and diverse a pool of potential articles here, even with this limited sample, there's unlikely to be sufficient consideration of each article on its own merits. I suggest working with this on project space in order to get a solid position first. Especially since Dragon, for example, has been editorially independent of the owner of D&D for quite some time, and it's hardly the *only* magazine or book about RPGs. And then there's 3rd party publishers for D&D since the advent of the OGL, which means...well, I'm not sure. But I do think that this situation warrants a consideration of the subject as opposed to a focus on the rules. Sorry, but there's a reason why The Spirit is more important the rules. Mister.Manticore 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. These articles are all cut from the same cloth. These aren't important monsters from Dungeons and Dragons, just idle side ones. They contain a bit of habitat/biology information copied from a monstrous manual, and as many variations have been listed. That's it. --Eyrian 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The way you word your statement makes me think you agree there are important monsters from D&D. That's *exactly* why I think that there needs to be a real discussion of the subject, not just an AFD shotgun. Thus I suggest you try the project space to develop a consensus first. At the least, it would show an interest in getting feedback from others if you were to bring up the issue there. Might not change anything, but it would be more of an effort. Mister.Manticore 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the succubus and basalisk articles Artw 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - These two articles should be handled in the same manner as the ones above: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons). 204.153.84.10 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree in principle, that these creatures probably do not merit their own articles, per the guideline at WP:FICT, I believe that they should be nominated separately so that we can consider them on a case by case basis. There's nothing inherent about this subject matter that merits grouping them together as such. -Chunky Rice 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the 200-some articles in Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures individually (and, yes, most of them should be deleted) isn't practical. --Eyrian 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep & Comment: I don't understand. Above, in response to Agammemnon@'s comment about the sheer amount of work it would take to delete & secure everything, you state "I'll take care of it, given time." But now you don't have time to nominate each article individually? Please take a consistant position.--Robbstrd 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my time. People complain if more than a few articles are nominated at once. --Eyrian 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's some sort of fundamental tie, I think that group nominations are a bad idea. It works if you're going to nominate a book for deletion, then various character pages and other sub pages should probably be a part of that nomination. They simply cannot survive without the main article. That's not the case here. Each article's merit is independent of the others. It might take a little while, but I see no practical reason why they shouldn't be nominated independently. Do a couple a day, and it'll be done a few months. -Chunky Rice 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I rewrote the page for the Construct creature type, I assume creature type articles will stay even if some creatures get the big axe? --Agamemnon2 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't currently being considered. Others will be nominated as necessary. If the article is good, it won't be deleted. --Eyrian 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of keep, close, and merge votes on this, I actually don't think you're in the position to say what will and won't be deleted here, Eyrian. You're defending this deletion nomination as if more users than just you are supporting it, when the consensus appears to be against deleting.OcciMoron 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian - the decision to keep or delete is not made on article quality.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as default currently. Mass nominations are not helpful and this should be restarted as individual -several articles will probably have independent pages to which material would be better off merged to a mass nomination will lead to fuzzy numbers and inaccurate consensus. Given the prime aim is 'pedia building, these mass nominations are counterproductive on principle. Thus the olny option is to keep/close and restart indivdually.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment. Once again, notability is being used as a lazy excuse for deletion with no standards as to what notability is in this context. If people are expecting "independent sources" like Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal to comment about Gorgons (And the D&D interpretation of Gorgons at that), then you will obviously find scant notable material. Amongst RPG players, RPG websites (especially those specializing in D&D) & RPG magazines (webzines or the printed variety), these are very notable creatures within the D&D universe & anyone with any D&D playing experience would already know that. Furthermore, a random sampling of these D&D deletion requests yields that there was no sufficient prior process to notify enthusiasts of these articles that "notability" was an impending issue as to the quality of the articles. A more prudent & diplomatic response would be to tag these articles as having concerns for their notability & let the D&D community have more time to justify the notability aspect of these articles. Should the articles not "improve" over a period of time, the notion of deletion would be more substantiated. -75.130.90.56 22:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

Incorrect. Notability means that there is independently published information. As in, not published or licensed by Wizards of the Coast or TSR. There is simply no material like that. --Eyrian 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see--a Google search for "iron golem," for example, reveals several websites that are not owned by WotC or TSR[1]. Sounds like independent sources to me.--Robbstrd 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all This seems a rather pointless issue to raise in the first place, and I'm not at all convinced to side with this scattershot of deletion requests. They have my vote to stay. Shemeska 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because you are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons does not mean that D&D-related articles are not notable. Clearly people who have zero amount of fame or are only famous in their neighborhoods are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles and a seemingly unlimited amount of space; that's what user pages are for. Fan fiction is also usually not considered notable. These articles, however, are notable. There are hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps even millions, who are interested in Dungeons & Dragons. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of keeping or deleting these articles.

Advantages of keeping: These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games); these articles have helpful, interesting, and detailed background information for those wishing to know more about the creatures; and the casual person browsing Wikipedia who knows nothing of the subject but wants to can easily learn by reading these articles or by simply scanning the first paragraph (for example, I was interested in the Star Wars Expanded Universe but knew absolutely nothing about it, so I read various articles that some editors are want to call "not notable" or "fancruft" and quickly became quite educated on the subject).

Disadvantages of keeping: It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth by an infinitesimal amount, or perhaps the subjects of these creature articles might feel offended by how they are represented in the articles and sue for libel. Also, perhaps some religious zealots might think these articles are blasphemy.

Advantages of deleting: Are there any? Perhaps appeasing editors who like to delete things or have a grudge against fiction, or perhaps to follow a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability or WP:FICT. But how will that benefit Wikipedia?

Disadvantages of deleting: Basically, people will be deprived of everything I mentioned in "Advantages of keeping."

Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, because there seems to be a strong majority consensus above to do so. I think merging in this case would only produce overly long articles and so in this instance, the separate articles probably work best. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By my count there are 9 keeps, 1 close (keep?), 1 merge, and a whole bunch of rebutting by the nominator. In that light, I'd like to politely suggest that it looks like snow. In other words, the D&D folks are never going to to see eye-to-eye with Eyrian over this. —Travis ^talk 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The gamer's guides do not make these individual creatures, as D&D monsters, notable. At the very least, merge them into a list, that is very pared down. i ^said 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep D&D and its characters are notable, and many people may find this information useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.170.120 (talk) 02:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have no intention at ever looking at these articles again (I sampled one or two now to see if there was content). I think there is sufficient, and the sources seem appropriate for the material. I'd say to keep them all for now, and let those who care decide which are minor enough to merge. It does not add an air of lack of seriousness to WP. Anyone who knows of DD and also of WP would expect to find this subject treated very extensively here. It's not being here is what would seem peculiar. DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say pare down and merge anything particular to D&D (such as, off the top of my head, mindflayers, beholders, aboleths, slaadi, etc) into a "List of D&D creatures" article. Delete any of the ones that are basically no different from mythology (that is, not unique to D&D), such as succubi, or angels. If deleting is unpalatable, merge those ones into the articles of their respective mythological forebears, clearly denoting which content is game-related so that the casual reader doesn't become confused. ♠PMC♠ 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Several of these articles are already a list of dozens of creatures consolidated into one article. There are over a dozen references listed in Golem alone. Although I might be convinced that some articles should be deleted, I refuse to accept the submitted list as is, because this should be discussed on an article by article basis. Turlo Lomon 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles for now; Chastise nom for attempting a PokeDeletion in re D&D. I suspect that the nom has an unused grindstone sitting around and a dull axe to grind, and is deciding to whet it on D&D articles. Submit the articles individually, and do NOT use Ratman as precedent. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and relist individually, as the outcome for some of the listed articles will be different than others, and I'm not comfortable making an umbrella decision to cover them all at once. spazure (contribs) 09:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is a guideline and not a policy, which, according to the guideline itself, may have exceptions from time to time. I would argue that the articles are notable in the first place but even if not should be the "occasional exception." The sources are the equivalent in some cases to self published material but there are other sources that are not. However, taking all things in context and with a view as to whether the encyclopedia is better with or without the articles, I think we should keep them. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I keep hearing replies that this nomination is misguided, that there are independent sources, etc. Well: where are they? Why should this article get a pass on having no independent importance when so many others do not? Why is proof by assertion sufficient here? As for WP:POINT, how am I gaming the system or acting in bad faith? I genuinely believe that these articles do not meet notability, as they have no independent sources. Concerning the decision to list several, there are about 200 entries in the D&D monster category. They should mostly be deleted. People complain if many articles are listed at once. These articles are all basically the same, and should be treated the same. --Eyrian 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is misguided only in the sense that if you delete these articles, then by fairness and equality you should also have deleted nearly all of Wikipedia's D&D coverage, as well as oodles, oodles I say, of articles on fictional characters, creatures, places and so on. I'm not averse to these deletions, merely the unequal state I fear would result. For example, you have marked Construct (Dungeons & Dragons) with a notability tag, but not any of the other creature types that by rights are equally (non)notable. This leads me to be concerned with the nominator's thoroughness in pursuing his goals. --Agamemnon2 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Item: I am generally averse to voting on multiple articles under the one AFD; Item: this represents the thing end of a wedge-berg, since it impacts on all RPG articles; Item: I concur with the "all or nothing" P-o-V -- these things are either allowed or disallowed on principle.

That said, my understanding, based on Wiki-precedent, is that the nominator be invited to select whichever he believes to be the keynote case, argue that to a resoltuion, and if the final consensus (carefully not saying "vote") is to delete, then all articles in the class are forthwith deleted, and can only come back as individual, and argued, exceptions. And I would concur with the salt proposal, if the delete goes ahead. -- Simon Cursitor 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent: notability. Every day, articles which have no coverage in independent sources are deleted. Must these be different because they are affiliated with Dungeons and Dragons? Why? --Eyrian 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at use of primary sources.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source

Now, let's take a look at the Golems entry (first on the list). There are 13 published books referenced. What the article needs is a little cleanup. You keep saying we should read the policies and I have. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources when they are published books from a major publisher of books. Turlo Lomon 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using primary sources. It's that these articles are exclusively referenced to primary sources, which doesn't meet the requirements for notability. --Eyrian 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete. Widely known or not, there still is a definite lack of reputable sources for these articles. Coming from the instruction manual and an affiliated magazine series does not strike me as very neutral and wide selection of sources. It'd be like only using Fox-based sources for Bill O'Reilly. If the closing admin reads closely, they see a lot of the keep's above are merely saying they like it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is an inadequate analogy. Using "Fox-only" articles for Bill O'Reilly would probably introduce NPOV problems; but not "notability" problems, which is what the nominator is arguing here. Neutrality is hardly an issue when discussing fictional entities unless blatant fanspeak starts creeping in. For the record, while a number are indeed saying "ILIKEIT," others are pointing out that such magazines and websites as are mentioned above do have a measure of independence in content, although several are published by the same companies. Due to the extensive coverage each of these topics receive, the Wikipedia ~~policy~~ guideline (Notability) does allow for flexibility in the cold, hard "number" of sources being demanded by the nominator. There is plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for that. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should these article be exempted? Why, when so many articles are required to demonstrate independent importance, should these be allowed to stay? Because you like them? These articles are only fanspeak. They're just a bunch of fictional details. As for independence, does "one of the two official magazines for source material for the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game and associated products" sound independent? --Eyrian 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Not because "ILIKEIT;" I actually have absolutely nothing personally to do with the games themselves. Now, there is a difference between fanspeak (how much I think this or that monster is "cool") and verified information about the in-game universe and presented as such. Of course they are just a bunch of "fictional details," they are about fictional creatures. That they are notable enough as fictional creatures is obvious if you do not ignore a) what I and others have said about the editorial nature of the sources used by the articles' authors, and b) the precedent I have mentioned at least twice now about the aspects of highly notable over-topics. As I've said several times, there is flexibility allowed in the guidelines that you appear extremely unwilling to concede, despite the precedent that exists... that is not very helpful to a neutral discussion of the subject matter. You ask, insistently, "Why should these articles be exempted?" Well, why should any articles be exempted? The fact that exemptions are allowed (if this case even amounts to an exemption) shows that there are reasons to consider such things; and they would constitute what most of the !voters are consistently pointing out: extensive mention in places unaffiliated with the playing of the actual game itself, the notability of the overall system, the precedent of other system-aspects of other notable games/works of fiction, the gray area of just what constitutes an "independent" source (different authors, and so on), and the like. At the very least, that there may be exceptions reflected IN the policy make a mass-nomination misguided, and a mass-deletion against current and past consensus(es), extremely far-reaching, and destructive. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive mention elsewhere? Prove it. These are common mythological tropes (the ones that aren't are things I've never heard of anywhere, like digesters and chokers). As I've repeatedly said, the only precedent here is a longstanding one: that articles without any kind of independent existence might get deleted. --Eyrian 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You have, of course, read the list of references of each article? They are "elsewhere" from the game guides, and from the titles of the essays and articles mentioned they seem to cover details about the entities behavior, environment, etc. That is "extensive," as far as I am concerned. Asserting otherwise is simply that, an argument from assertion. I understand that you and I don't seem to have the same view of what constitutes an entirely independent source, but that is only one narrow aspect of all that I have said above. It may have been useful at the moment for you to fixate on that one, because you've never responded to the others, but I think it might be better for you to focus on the overall picture the !votes are presenting to you. I don't feel comfortable arguing with you over how very narrowly to apply a particular guideline, I don't think that accomplishes all that much; but I am content to just let the consensus speak here. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you be specific and name the references you feel are independent? I don't think any of them are. Not one. Name one you think that is, specifically. --Eyrian 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Except, these articles do have some kind of independent existence, since the editors of Wikipedia and the writers of D&D are not one and the same. So the question becomes, is that sufficient on its own? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I do not think that an adamant no-tolerance policy is the best way to develop consensus here, or even all that well-advised. I still say it'd be better to try to work with folks and come to an agreement over the acceptable threshold for inclusion. Of course, that may not work either (in fact, I know of several categories of articles where I've tried the approach, but the established base of editors refuses to even admit there is a problem). But it would look better to at least try. Mister.Manticore 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. The acceptable threshold is the same as it's always been: Independent, reliable sources. Notability, notability, notability. There is nothing new here, despite what some D&D focused editors might think. The criteria here are the same ones that are applied to dozens of articles every day. --Eyrian 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so now you're accusing us of bias, then? I must most empathically protest. I have never been against these deletions, I only demand, only demand, mark you, that it be carried out totally, logically and across all of the hundreds of D&D articles that fail to meet the standard, instead of singling this particular subset out. All or nothing is the axiom. I'm sorry if you feel that is unfair. --Agamemnon2 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it unwise to simultaneously nominate 200 articles at first blush. --Eyrian 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But much more honest, as that's what being discussed here, isn't it? --Agamemnon2 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (or, at worst, merge into larger articles) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has always been enough. Again, it's not a matter of having to prove that notability applies, it's a matter of proving that it doesn't. Notability is a guideline, which means that it should be followed except when there is a good reason. What's the good reason? --Eyrian 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nom's talk page is suggesting he's trying to alter WP:NOT to suit his aims in this AfD. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 *'''Keep all (or, at worst, merge into larger articles)''' - Notability is a guideline, not a rule.  In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not.  If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak.  Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 :*Notability has always been enough. Again, it's not a matter of having to prove that notability applies, it's a matter of proving that it ''doesn't''. Notability is a guideline, which means that it should be followed except when there is a good reason. What's the good reason? --[[User:Eyrian/T|Eyrian]] 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' Nom's talk page is suggesting he's trying to alter [[WP:NOT]] to suit his aims in this AfD. -<font color="008000">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <font color="FF7F50">[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Kacheek!]]</font>)</sup></small> 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)