Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)

Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)

Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Also the following articles:

• Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) (Please see comment about the struck out articles) - SudoGhost 04:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Caterwaul (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Cave cricket (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Bunyip (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Bonesnapper
• Crabman
• Crypt thing
• Adherer
• Al-mi'raj (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Atomie (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Ascomoid
• Algoid
• Aurumvorax
• Axe beak
• Basidirond
• Slicer beetle
• Blindheim (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Buckawn
• Cave fisher
• Coffer corpse
• Cooshee

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. SudoGhost 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete all and Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (or any other appropriate target), an outcome also supported by the D&D Wikiproject, which already recommended this a year ago. As nominator said, all articles fail WP:GNG in that there is not a single secondary independent source whatsoever, everything is primary, nothing can be found Google Books/Scholar, and the topics are unlikely to ever receive notable coverage. Articles should have stayed redirects, the recent restorations were unsubstanciated. I also agree that Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games, is a campain add-on for official D&D books, it is primary content devoid of any out-of-universe comment/analysis and is completely dependent on commercial D&D products as indicated by its disclaimer (p.1): "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®".Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is merely the latest nonsense from the Sudo Ghost-Folken tag team in their crusade against D&D articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aren't very convincing; it's almost like the article fails WP:GNG, but if you want to believe I'm out on some "crusade", you're welcome to your ignorance but that isn't an argument against deletion. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Crusades against massive proliferation of crap articles should be applauded. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're unhelpful. Hekerui (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• This argument is conflating two separate and independent discussions from the WP:D&D; the second of which does not represent a consensus for action. Ergo your premise appears dubious. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• My premise is that none of the articles meet WP:GNG. Please provide independent secondary sources before labelling it as "dubious". Thanks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep all, as the "Tome of Horrors" is an independent source. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs)

  I would like to amend my initial statement to reflect the fact that, per comments below, additional sources have been found for the brownie, caryatid column, and adherer, and there are people searching for more on the others. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I have yet to see any source that would meet the criteria established by WP:GNG, that are "significant coverage", "secondary sources", "independent of the subject or its creator". The source added in Brownie is strictly primary and non-independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, it was established that Tome of Horrors is not an independent source and not a secondary source, thus not meeting the standards set by WP:GNG. Besides, a single source is not gonna save the article as notable topics require coverage in multiple sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  You asserted it was no an independent source; in no way was such a thing established by the consensus. Please stop holding up things that were not agreed upon by the consensus as established and get with the idea of consensus-building as the operative mechanism for improving Wikipedia. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  I haven't seen anyone in [Apparition AfD] coming to defend the independence of ToH. That is the consensus I use to back up my claim. Where's yours ? Yes, I know you and BOZ disagreed with mwhat I say, but merely disagreeing isn't proving, I haven't seen any attempt at consensus-building in your behavior. Contrary to you, I have explained why ToH is not independent, you have not explained, nor tried to discuss or reach a consensus with me, you have just tried to push for your own POV on the question, ignoring all my remarks, arguments, and attempts at discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Scroll down to the bottom of said AfD. I defended it there. Further, in your response to BOZ you have the temerity to state that you assume because he didn't respond to some specific comment by you, that he agrees with you. Getting in the last word, out-trying the other editor's patience, does not give you the weight of consensus. Do us the courtesy of putting forth your own perspective as your own, and please stop trying to assign it weight that they have not be given. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, you haven't defended anything, you've merely declared your POV on it while carefully avoiding to answer to the issues I raised in the discussion. I can't see how you can build a consensus if you refuse to interact with other users. AfDs and discussions are not votes.Besides, you say very nice things about me, but I'm not the only one here questioning the independence of ToH and you still haven't given them any answer that goes beyong "I assert that ToH is editorially independent". We'll never know how/why, but at least we know I'm "getting in the last word, out-trying the other editor's patience". Great.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've discussed the Tome of Horrors and it's distinction from the Pathfinder SRD (which I concur is not an independent source) previously. I only concurred with what BOZ said at that juncture as being substantially relevant and correct: that the Tome of Horrors is not merely a re-statement of first party material. At any rate, the relevance here is limited, since in most of the attendant cases here, the articles still do not have enough references for WP:GNG. But in those cases where other sources are identified, this will be relevant. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way is "Tome of Horrors" an independent source? It is a primary source; a rulebook written for Dungeons and Dragons for the sole purpose of being used for that game system. Under no circumstances is that even close to independent. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BOZ, you also appear to have a pretty strong conflict of interest here, given that on the Creature Catalog website your name is specificially mentioned at the bottom of the page as one of the four individuals that did the conversions, and you were the one that began that Creature Catalog conversions in the first place. This becomes a conflict of interest because this same Creature Catalog is specifically mentioned on the first page of Tome of Horrors, under "Special Thanks". In fact, the very last line of that same page is a URL directing people to that same Creature Catalog. Why did you fail to mention this when you decided it was an "independent source"? - SudoGhost 14:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure on my involvement with the Creature Catalog website: I was one of the site admins from about 2002 – 2008; I ended my involvement there around the time I became more involved with Wikipedia. I was one of the people who converted monsters from older editions, and posted them on the site. I did not begin the website or its conversions; the last time I checked the site’s banner read "Scott Greene's Creature Catalog", as Scott was the site’s originator. Scott began working for Necromancer Games and left the Creature Catalog to me to run on my own, and soon after the Tome of Horrors was announced as the publishing deal had been struck. I had no direct involvement in the book, and prior to its announcement I had no knowledge that the book was being produced. My understanding is that the text from the website’s entries was rewritten from scratch and that in most cases the game statistics were altered; at least, this was what I recall discovering when comparing between the two. This is why the book says "Special Thanks" to the website and includes a link, because of Scott's involvement and using the site’s content as a starting point. You seem to feel that there is a problem with me pointing at the book as a source, but I don’t see why any of this prevents the Tome of Horrors from being an independent source. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't prevent it from being an independent source, but the fact that you worked with the author on a related project makes you not the most neutral on the subject. But why would it be an indpendent source? It's a sourcebook for Dungeons and Dragons. Why would that be independent for a creature in Dungeons and Dragons? Are you seriously suggesting that this product, produced for this Dungeons and Dragons, was published with no interest in Dungeons and Dragons, and discusses it from a disinterested perspective? This book is not a third-party source, it is not unaffiliated with Dungeons and Dragons, it's a Dungeons and Dragons sourcebook, and requires other Dungeons and Dragons books to even be used properly, as per the very first page. That's not independent under any circumstances, and the fact that the only sources that are found for any of these are Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks means that no, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. - SudoGhost 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Because I would seriously like to know where this "independent source" argument is coming from, because I haven't seen a single explanation for why this would be an independent source, just that it is. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors and the Monster Manual? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons and Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons and Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.

There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons and Dragons independent of Dungeons and Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. Both publishers are doing so, therefore neither one is independent. - SudoGhost 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tome of Horrors is by a third party publisher with editorial independence from Wizards of the Coast. Further, contrasted with the more questionable case of the Pathfinder SRD, the material in the Tome of Horrors is conversion, no just edited SRD content. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Tome of Horrors had no editorial independence since its authors "worked directly with Wizards of the Coast", as stated in the preface. The authors have acknowledged their intention to make this book an official part of the D&D product line. Besides, the book is not secondary, doesn't contain any analysis or out-of-universe comments, but is merely primary in-game content that is intended to be used inside a D&D session purely for gaming purpose, alongside other D&D material. I have already asked you this question but you avoided it: how can you say that a book, stating on p.1 that "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®", could be independent of Wizards of the Coast ? You conveniently chose to only refer to "editorial independence", but WP:IS also mentions "no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." Can you honestly say that there is no conflict of interest, no significant connexion and disinterest in a commercially released book that seeks through contacts with copyright holders to be considered official, and is, for all intents and purposes, by the authors' own admission, useless without official D&D products ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• That seems to be the crux of your confusion. The publisher is a third-party publisher, not a third-party source, those two terms mean very different things, and are not interchangable. A third-party publisher just means that they aren't the primary publisher, nothing more. Their relationship to Wizards of the Coast is immaterial, so their editorial independence or lack thereof doesn't mean anything, the subject matter is not Wizards of the Coast, but Dungeons and Dragons. They are both publishers that create content for that game, and the only thing that is being cited is content from the game. It doesn't matter if they are independent of one another if neither is independent of that game. We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes? third-party publishers have created video game content, that doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't think anyone would argue that it's notable, yet this is somehow different because it's tabletop? No, it isn't. - SudoGhost 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nosir, you would be incorrect. I'm not saying third party source is equivalent to third party publisher. I am saying a third party publisher (as the term describes the predominant model of third party publishing during the d20 system boom) has editorial independence. You assert "it does not matter" that they are independent, but WP policy says otherwise. Editorial independence is is the key tenet of WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• In our case, it indeed doesn't seem to matter that NG would be "third party publisher", as per the ToH intro, NG had direct contacts with WotC over editorial issues, and in a more general way, NG have clearly expressed their intention (both to readers and WotC) to make ToH a part of the D&D brand/product line. There is neither "editorial independence", nor "disinterest" (both are mentionned in WP:IS) from NG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If NG's editorial relationship was merely securing permission to republish TSR material, I would assert that is not a "significant connection" per WP:IS. If, as you say, Tome of Horrors was somehow "part of the D&D product line", that would be relevant. However, the Tome of Horrors has no D&D branding that I am aware of(unlike Kenzer's Kalamar product line we discussed in the Lamia article). Can you tell me what you are referring to here? - Sangrolu (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The editorial independence (which is not the sole criteria in determining independence) doesn't matter, because it's not the publisher that's the subject of the articles, it's a game concept. They aren't independent of the game concept they're selling, their relationship to and editorial independence of another publisher that publishes material for the same game concept is immaterial to that. - SudoGhost 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, as I understand the d20/SRD licence system (I may be wrong), no one really needs to specifically ask WotC to republish D&D content. What NG tells us in the ToH preface is that they not only asked WotC permission, they did so to ensure WotC wouldn't include the creatures in their future releases to make ToH as close as possible to an official release ("We worked directly with Wizards of the Coast to make sure that no monster in this book (well, only a handful) would be included in a later Wizards of the Coast product. So, you can rest assured that the contents of this book will not be superceded by any later “official” book"). The way I understand it, they didn't ask to republish anything (because the OGL apparently lets them do it anyway), they told WotC of their intention to be as official as possible, and WotC let them do so, I can't really see where could be the editorial independence. Besides, NG does state that "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®", making ToH completely dependent on the D&D brand/product line (or if you want, "the subject", as mentioned in WP:GNG, "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator). With such a disclaimer, affiliation to the subject appears clear-cut to me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, got it. It's really not part of the D&D product line, but I can see how you came to that conclusion. Let me see if I can shed some light on this situation, because it is sort of confusing. In other recent discussions, I discussed that Pathfinder uses a license called to Open Game License to republish material provided by Wizards of the Coast in a document called the System Reference Document (d20 SRD), which is basically a bunch of game-rules text Wizards wished to allow under licensing under to OGL.
In addition, they provided another license called the D20 System Trademark License, or D20 STL. It allows the user to refer to the D&D players handbook (as you describe) in very small type, and use the D20 logo; use of the D&D branding is specifically not allowed. Since this is also a no-maintenance license, I don't think this qualifies as a "significant relationship". (As an aside, current Pathfinder products don't use this license).
The one thing that makes the case less clear cut is that NG secured specific permission to republish some of Wizards' fictional elements in the Tome of Horrors. Does that constitute lack of editorial independence? I can see your case here, but at the same time, I still don't see NG as acting as WotC agents, and as the material is not just edited SRD entries, I think that the ToH is definitely more independent than Pathfinder SRD entries. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right in that ToH isn't an official WotC product, and isn't officially endorsed by them. However for me, their preface sounds like the writers did everything they could to sell their book to D&D players as a part of the "official" D&D universe, but stopped short of outright saying "This is an official WotC product". We can't say this is a WotC product, but the advertisment behind it strongly implies a connexion. I'll agree, for now, to leave that notion here and to see it as "grey area". However, there is another aspect on which I think you can agree with me: ok, NG is a third-party publisher, but isn't the book a primary source ? We can argue for days about the level of influence WotC had on the product, however, this time it is clear-cut that ToH is part of the whole D&D universe and cannot function on its own, cannot be seen as detached from the D&D game (per the "requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook..."). Though they don't have a clear-cut contract to act as WotC agent, they're still using a licencing that makes them part of the whole D&D gaming experience. The level of sourcing required to pass WP:GNG is defined as being "secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and per WP:primary, secondary sources "make analytic or evaluative claimes". As such, ToH being a source for in-universe, in-game content, completely integrated into the official D&D gaming system, it is a primary source that doesn't provide any analytic or evaluative claims. And thus, ToH is not "independent of the subject", is not a primary source, and cannot be used to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect All - There is absolutely nothing to indicate any sort of independant notability for any of these creatures. Pretty much every "source" presented is first party. Even if (and that's a pretty huge if, since I don't believe it at all) this "Tome of Horrors" is somehow considered a secondary source, this does not actually help at all. Not only is it a single source, when articles require multiple reliable sources, but it doesn't actually support any of the core information in the articles anyways. Every single one of these nominated articles are just extremely minor monsters (amongst hundreds) that have no notability. Wikipedia has some pretty clear guidelines for determining whether or not subjects meet the notability required for an article, and none of these come close to meeting them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and resubmit individually. While Rorshacma is fundamentally correct that the Tome of Horrors is only a single source (insufficient for GNG), the character of these creatures are such that some (not all, not even most) of them are of sufficient notoriety that I know that other third party resources are available. In particular, I know that the Caryatid Column has other third party resources. Mass AfD of this sort is inappropriate in this instance; discussing individual entries on their own merits is untenable in this format, and it does not grant editors the leeway to address surmountable problems. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Could you please present these "third party sources", so that we can judge of the validity of your claims that a grouped-AfD would not be necessary here ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, listing some of of the ones that you know of here would be helpful to see if a group AFD like this is valid or not. The reason why I ask, is that I actually did search for sources for each creature included before voting to delete all, for precisely the reason you stated. However, I was unable to find any valid third party sources for any of them. Even the Caryatid Collumn, I was unable to find anything that was third party that was referring specifically to the D&D monster, and not to the actual real life Caryatid that we already have an article on. My reasoning was that since none of the included creatures had, as far as I could find looking, any notability, voting to delete them all together would save on a lot of needless bureaucracy by listing every single one as a separate AFD, when the same arguments could be made for each one. But, I would be willing to change my stance on this if you provided some examples to show the contrary.Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Rorshacma - I'll take a look when I get home time permitting, this weekend otherwise. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  As it stands all of these articles are functionally identical for the purposes of AfD. However, I would agree that if even a single truly third-party reliable source (not a sourcebook or D&D rulebook of any kind) is presented for one of the articles listed above, then that this AfD wouldn't apply to that article, and it could be removed from consideration here completely. - SudoGhost 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Sounds good. We'll take a look at them once you have the time. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Update - still a busy weekend and did not have time to extract proper references with ISBNs, etc., or identify any further creatures from the list, and will note I differ with the criteria that gaming sourcebooks of any sort are ineligible to be WP:IS. The book I was thinking of for the Caryatid Column is the Pathfinder Bestiary 3. Note here that I consider this to be different than the Pathfinder SRD Bestiary entries, which I have previously rejected as a WP:IS because it is largely edited first party material. The Caryatid Column was not released as open game content by Wizards, so the PF Bestiary 3's material is not just edited WotC material.
  In addition, an editor has identified additional material of note for another creature, the Adherer, which appears in the Paizo book Misfit Monsters Redeemed. I don't own this product, but I suspect it is more unambiguously a WP:RS as it is not just game statistics or in universe background, but advice to GMs on how to use the creature in the game, which constitutes some sort of analytical statement. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  And that is still 1) not the D&D monster, it is the Pathfinder monster 2) a primary source of in game monster detail, not any substantial content discussing the D&D monster in any real world context. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  That's entirely specious. Pathfinder has advertised their products as being useful with "the worlds most popular roleplaying game", and they are. They only avoid using the actual name "Dungeons and Dragons third edition" because of licensing restrictions. We know the score. But if you are honestly uncomfortable with the subtitle (Dungeons and Dragons), I am fully willing to support a move and redirect to Caryatid column (Role playing games) (etc.).
  Take a look at WP:Wikilawyering. We should be upholding the principle here, not technicalities. The principle is to require additional sources because they establish that it's not just the original promulgator plugging their own interests. The fact that other publishers are using the same creature shows the notability of the creature! - Sangrolu (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  you have just proved my point. unless you have a third party source that makes the claim that the pathfinder beast is the same as the D&D beast, any connection is just your WP:SYN making connections that are not explicity in the source. And that is not a "technicality", its straightforward basic application and intention of policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's really not. First off, no WP:OR is required; the license statement of all of these products cite the Dungeons and Dragons game; it just can't be used in marketing. Further, this is no more WP:OR than including different publishers' zombies in Zombie (fictional) is. It's merely a matter of selecting the scope of the article; again, I am perfectly comfortable moving the article if you feel the scope has really changed. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  "The fact that other publishers are using the same creature shows the notability of the creature!" -> That statement is original research by synthesis of the most blatant kind: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Per WP:GNG, notability isn't inferred by contributors from several primary sources that adopt no external analytical stance (and are not able to do so), it is explicitely stated in several independent research/criticism works. Pathfinder Bestiary 3 is a primary source by Paizo on Paizo's Pathfinder game, per Paizo's official website ("Bestiary 3 presents hundreds of monsters for use in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game [...] The Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 is the third indispensable volume of monsters for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and serves as a companion to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and Pathfinder RPG Bestiary"). It is not about the D&D creature because, as you said, it's "not just edited WotC material". Changing the title of the article will not fix that, WotC/TSR/Paizo will all be primary sources on the creature anyway. Now, if you claim Pathfinder Bestiary 3 is about D&D, then it is primary material not independent of D&D. You now this. Besides, "Misfit Monster Redeemed" is a "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" (still per the official website), so a primary source that doesn't contain any external encyclopedic discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  "That statement is original research by synthesis of the most blatant kind" - WP:OR is about content of articles, not about the creation of articles. I cannot assert something in an article that is not present in the sources. But assembling and vetting sources for articles is implicitly a research oriented activity. Asserting that the Bestiary 3 Caryatid column is talking about the "same" caryatid column should be non-controversial since D&D is mentioned by name in the licensing text and the Caryatid column is, mentioned by name as being from that source. I don't own it, but I would wager Misfit Monsters has the exact same text. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  There is an article about real-life "Caryatid columns", conceivably you could try adding well referenced mentions of them in both the D&D and Pathfinder roleplaying games. But you would need secondary sources to show that the mention was notable. Merely quoting games manuals would not be sufficient to establish notability.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Sangrolu, you're again completedly avoiding to adress relevant issues. Whether your claims are OR or not is a non-issue; that your claims violate WP:GNG is a big problem: notability isn't inferred by contributors from several primary sources that adopt no external analytical stance (and are not able to do so), it is explicitely stated in several independent research/criticism (ie secondary) works. If Bestiary 3 is about D&D, then it is a non-independent primary source on D&D that doesn't contain any analytic or evaluative claims. Same for Misfit Monsters. If not about D&D, then it is primary source on Pathfinder which is thus not on-topic and doesn't contain any analytic or evaluative claims.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  "If Bestiary 3 is about D&D, then it is a non-independent primary source on D&D" - You are creating a false dichotomy here; a source can be a primary source about one thing and a secondary source about something else. The Bestiary 3 being a primary source for Pathfinder does not prevent it from being a secondary source for D&D. The licensing situation creates some odd technicalities you appear to be trying to exploit to damn these articles, but I believe with respect to these few articles at least, the intent of WP:GNG is met: they are not mere self promotions like liner sleeves and that they have been taken up by other publishers demonstrates significance. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  You don't know what a "secondary source" is, then. Secondary sources "make analytic or evaluative claims" about primary sources. Bestiary 3 is a primary source and doesn't contain any external analytic claim. Whether Pathfinder is D&D or not is irrelevant as to the nature of the source. Paizo's Bestiary being entirely about Paizo's Pathfinder, it IS self promotion, obviously. And if it is about D&D, then it is self-promotion for D&D. And significance per WP:GNG isn't inferred by contributors from several primary sources that adopt no external analytical stance (and are not able to do so), it is explicitely stated in several independent research/criticism (ie secondary) works. You seem to be unable to work with others toward a consensus, Toddy1 just told you game manuals are not secondary sources, and you keep ignoring whole parts of WP:GNG when they don't fit with your aims. And it's not only about GNG, even WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", yet you absolutely refuse to adress the issue of secondary sources. Reducing the GNG to just "not mere self promotions" isn't removing any issue on secondary sources. Your blind obstination to refuse to admit a fact, that Bestiary is a primary sources is really counterproductive for this discussion. Please adopt a more reasonable and compromising behavior, trying to be right for the sake of being right, against common sense, is not gonna lead you anywhere and is likely to create more tensions rather than resolving them. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I am not trying to be right for the sake of being right. I am following what I believe to be the intent of the prevailing guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:OR in light of peculiarities with the hobby and its licensing situation. I am willing to accede that most of the submitted articles fail to meet WP:GNG, save but 3 (Brownie, Caryatid Column, and Adherer); I suggest you consider your own advice about being reasonable and compromising and recognize that my position is a compromise.
  As for primary sources, I read your complaint and repeat: these are not primary sources for D&D. The are not, as WP:OR says, "very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". They are independent publishers who wrote additional material after the fact, and the content of those books does not create a picture of the creatures that differ from D&D's, which meets the intent of WP:OR. - Sangrolu (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie just for the sake of a compromise with you. Unlike you, I'm not interpreting anything. Refusing to admit the truth about a primary source is not "following the intent" of any guideline, and hide behind an "intent" that conveniently expurges the elements you don't like isn't compromising. If the sources you present "are not primary sources for D&D", then they are primary source for Pathfinder, and thus it is not on-topic. "additional material" means primary source, since in the context of fictional works, a primary source is the fiction itself, and if a work continues the fiction, then it is primary (for more on that see WP:PASI, " primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction "). If they are not primary sources, then what are they, according to you ? Certainly not secondary sources, because these are "making analytic or evaluative claims", and since, still according to you, Bestiary only contains additional fictional material, then it's not analysis. You are really the only person here holding this rather strange claim that a source of original work of fiction would not be a primary source (which goes against every definition that guidelines and policies have), so you may want to reconsider this strategy of sticking to your non-consensual claim... Edit please read WP:PSTS#cite_note-2 for further proof that your interpretation of "primary source" is incorrect ("Further examples of primary sources include [...] artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs". Question, is Pathfinder Bestiary a fictional work in itself ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "hiding" behind intent and would remind you to WP:AGF. I concede this is an unusual case but authentically believe that the sources demonstrate WP:GNG as stated. Were I have not felt D&D monster articles are notable enough to warrant stand-alone pages I have weighed in against them, and I dismissed the Pathfinder SRD as a WP:RS in prior debates, so I don't know why you think I would suddenly decide to "hide behind intent" now.
The cite note and examples on WP:OR are just that: examples. The real governing policy on WP:PSTS is as I have already cited: "the source is very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". As a counterpoint to your cite note, read WP:PSTS#cite_note-5, "either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source", so don't be so shocked at my contention that something be considered both a primary source for one thing and secondary source for another. I do see your point with respect to WP:PASI, but the article is concerned with where different forms of information come from in an article. That secondary information usually comes from secondary sources is usually true. But that's a manual of style and not related to establishing WP:GNG, so don't that's a)damning or b)relevant here. - Sangrolu (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck can you with any straight face claim that content whose sole purpose is to be sold for financial gain for direct use within a D&D game NOT be "very close to an event,"??? That is completely and utter absurd and reaching the point where it is impossible to assume good faith.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And? Every newspaper ever is sold with the intent of getting financial gain for the publisher. But they are perfectly okay to use as WP:RS in wikipedia. You have a very skewed definition of what it takes to be "very close to an event". The folks at Necromancer Games aren't employed by Wizards and weren't there when writing the original material. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

a newspaper is sold for financial gain, but a newspaper is NOT sold based entirely on a story of single football game or single national election or story of the newspaper being bought by another conglomorate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRPOD, it becomes more and more difficult to assume good faith with you, Sangrolu. I though your were on the reasonable side of D&D fans, but I'm really puzzled as to your new line of defense that consists of carefully selecting parts of guidelines and dismiss those which don't fit with your interpretation. TRPOD is entirely right, that you're dismissing examples cited in WP:PSTS because they are example is absurd, a primary source can be a lot of things depending on the subject, which is why these are examples as a note so as not to take up too much space. Notes in PSTS are as much policy as the rest of the page. And even more absurb, right after dismissing note 2, you have no problem in using note 5 in your argumentation. As to note 5, you still haven't proved that Pathfinder Bestiary would contain anything besides fiction. WP:PASI is a MoS about fiction, which is precisely the case of D&D monsters, and explains how the concept of primary source is applied to works of fiction, which is precisely what we're debating. GNG states that sources used for notability guidelines are only secondary, and PASI explains what are primary/secondary sources for fiction, PASI IS related to establishing notability. You can't just use the guidelines you wish and reject those that contradict your views. Tome of Horrors/PF Bestiary are sources of original fiction, so primary sources, and they don't contain secondary elements. Even if they did, they couldn't be used as secondary source since they'd be commenting on their own fiction, thus not independent of the subject or the creators.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. I neglected to state that while commenting on this massive, bad-faith nomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF (particularly WP:AOBF), you seem to have a critical misunderstanding of what "bad faith" means. Also, stating keep without saying why gives no weight to an AfD discussion; AfD is not a vote. - SudoGhost 21:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess making comments attacking other editors can make you forget to actually make any constructive debates. Please mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith as there is nothing to show that anything being done here is in bad faith aside from the fact that you disagree with them. And on that note, do you actually have any policy-based reason for your argument? Since both comments you left here show that your only argument for Keeping is that you are assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator. Rorshacma (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think the badgering and battleground mentality of this tag-team is "constructive debate" then I don't know what to say. I'm done here, so come on Sudo Ghost; post below me and enjoy the last word! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge any informative content as per User:BOZ above - excluding any notable counterexamples as identified by User:Sangrolu. Further Comment: I've been watching this and related discussions for the last 3 or 4 days, and I'd like to pointedly remind all parties of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and (since the discussion seems to be degenerating to that point) WP:NPA as well. This isn't a discussion, it's a shouting match.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Vulcan's Forge is quite right. So far, this has not been a consensus-seeking discussion.

  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)

Are you suggesting that each individual AfD would be less AfD work? These articles are identical in purpose, and the discussions would be identical for all of them, what benefit would be granted in splitting them unnecessarily? If any of the articles have any additional sources, I've already said they would not apply here, and to remove them from consideration. Barring that, an AfD for each identical AfD would be tenacious at best, and would cause an unnecessary split in an otherwise identical discussion, and that makes no sense at any rate. Unless there is something different about any of the articles, to create 23 separate, yet identical AfDs has no purpose other than to split a discussion. I don't see 23 identical nominations, 23 identical pages someone would have to comment on, and 23 identical discussions for an admin to close being in any way beneficial to anyone for any reason. And where is this convention you're alluding to? - SudoGhost 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• SudoGhost, I suspect you haven't fully understood me. When a good faith user who is in good standing asks you to unbundle your nomination so each article can be considered individually, you should agree. This is a convention, not a rule. It's probably not written down anywhere. It's simply good manners: the customary, polite, consensus-seeking, conflict de-escalating behaviour that Wikipedia expects at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you explain how converting from a single discussion to twenty identical discussions is beneficial, conflict de-escallating, polite etc to anyone? In fact, starting 20 individual AfDs would seem to be actively disruptive. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• If it was converting from a single discussion to twenty identical ones, then clearly it wouldn't be beneficial. The operative word there is "if". But the case being made here is that they wouldn't be identical.

  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)

• Exactly. What's the rush? Let's take these a few at a time and work them out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Point out one difference in the articles and the reasons for deletion/keeping? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• If any of these articles were different in any way, there'd be a reason to separate them. They are not. They have the same references and the same lack of notability for the same exact reasons. If any of these articles can be given a single third-party source (not a sourcebook or D&D rulebook) then it can be removed from consideration. Save that, "what's the rush" means nothing; it's not like these articles are expansive articles that cannot be recreated if they ever become notable. Hell, if they're redirected nothing is lost at all. - SudoGhost 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Red Pen and SudoGhost, with all due respect, neither of you are listening. Sangrolu claims there are sources for some of these creatures but not others. In my opinion he will be correct.

  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)

• If you need another 41 years to find the source for those that may have them, then any article can be recreated based on the actual material in that source in however many years from now it takes you to find that source for that particular critter. There is nothing in these articles that even if deleted would be material to those recreations based on third party coverage (and even the current crap articles would be available in the redirect or from admin un-deleting and moving to talk space). -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable, but I think an excellent venue to discuss and consider at leisure is Talk:Monster Manual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• As for now, I'd say past AfDs haven't given us reasons to think D&D monsters would be particularly notable. In not the nominator so it's not my choice, but I'd say that on WP, there's a presumption of non-notability on these topics, so I still feel the grouped nomination is appropriate. While I don't question Sangrolu's or Marshall's good faith, I'm afraid source debates are all gonna be the same as we already had, ie it will all turn out to be primary content. As for gaming strategy in White dwarf, that's sounds like a good at idea at first, but a gaming strategy is still in-game content. Strategies are basicall player-actions, and those are inherent primary components of the game. Saying how to beat a monster has no analytic value outside of a gaming session. Saying that beating a monster is difficult, that such monster is the strongest in all D&D, etc, that is external analytic comment, even though if it is restricted to just one or two sentence it wouldn't be significant. But a gaming strategy is still part of the gaming system, it is still something that will happen only between players in the context of the game, and has no independence to it ("independent of the subject" from WP:GNG). White Dwarf strategies would be an integral part to the global D&D commercial plan (players buy WD as a guide to D&D, hardly being able to exist without the game as support) and there is conflict of interest (not mentionning the fact that WD also published campains for D&D). And even without all these issues, White Dwarf would only be one publisher while passing WP:GNG requires multiple sources (from different publishers), and given that everything else would ~be primary sourcebooks, I don't see it likely that one D&D monster will ever really pass the GNG. At least not any of those nominated here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, please. It's perfectly normal for sources to depend on the popularity of the things they're discussing. We cite sports magazines in articles related to the sport. We cite television criticism in articles related to the TV programme. In both cases, the sources depend on their subjects to be successful, but that doesn't mean there's a conflict of interest, or that they aren't editorially independent, or that they aren't reliable. As for the idea that WD is only one publisher, that's true but it doesn't imply there aren't others, and indeed a brief search tells me that other potential sources do exist, such as ISBN 0-88254-514-0 or ISBN 0-71009-466-3.

  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)

• It's not the same case when such sources provide player-actions that are the fundamental basis of the game. When publications like WD contain both guides and new in-universe primary content, I don't think the distinction you're talking about can be done. You're not refering to articles about D&D creatures, you're refering to in-game player actions that have no value outside the context of a game session. As for hypothetical sources, again given the results of numerous past AfD I don't think they can reasonably bee assumed to exist. And unless you're implying that the closing of this AfD will magically destroy any real-life book he could stumble upon, I don't see why Sangrolu wouldn't have the chance to look for them. If he wants to argue that what he'll (maybe) find will impact article notability, then he still has 5 days to so in this AfD, he will still have to the end of his days to do so in article talk pages (since they're likely to be redirected instead of deleted) and the D&D Project talk page. And if he succeeds in proving some articles indeed pass GNG, I don't think anyone here will try to prevent article restoration (which will be even easier with redirects).Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• If a redirect's okay with everyone, then the AfD should be speedily closed as keep (see WP:SK ground 1). Which is what would have already happened if certain users weren't determined to use AfD for cleanup.

  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)

• First, this AfD cannot be be SKed for ground 1) because the nominator did indeed advance an argument for deletion: failing WP:GNG. I'd gladly BOLDLY redirect any D&D monster article that I stumble upon. Each time I (or others) do so, the same minority of D&D enthusiasts tell us to "go to AfD" ([1]), so that's what we do. I guess they see AfD as the ultimate article-legitimation tool on WP, and I don't disagree with that, as AfDs are notified to the whole WP community, and not restricted to article talk pages and projects talk pages which are usually more likely to attract like-minded users rather than large numbers of diverse contributors, consensus thus appears more global and more difficult to question. I also guess that a well-structured timed debate with systematic evaluation by admins feels more certain/secure than endless discussions never leading anywhere. If that's what people on both sides want, why deny it ? As to your "2)" point, my contention is that strategy only intended for in-game use is not comparable to proper criticism and I provide reasons to think so, among other concerns of CoI, yes. But you boil it down to "COI!", don't answer, and instead you tell me to take it to WT:RS and that you "don't approve" contradiction to your claims. BTW, I don't merely say "this is invalid" and then leave, I engage in a discussion as to why I think this would be invalid and give you the possibility to provide convincing counter-argumentation. You are either assuming bad faith on the part of people who question sources, or are implying that being a D&D fan or an inclusionist would mean that you can never be wrong. From the moment you "don't approve" the very idea of a debate, I don't see why I would continue talking to you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yanno what? I'll be over here with Joefromrandb, because you three have convincingly proved him right. Go on and post below me, enjoy the last word.—S Marshall T/C 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• procedural keep At the least these should go back to being redirects as they are reasonable search terms (in most cases) and have a history of articles existing there (so may have external links to them) and so AfD is the wrong venue. The nomination doesn't address those issues and has no basis for actual deletion rather than redirection. An RfC is a more appropriate way forward. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with them being redirects, if that's what the AfD consensus is (which it appear to be leaning towards, with both the keep and delete comments), then an RfC is unnecessary. - SudoGhost 01:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As this is where we discuss deletions and there is no case for deletion, this is the wrong venue. This isn't "articles for discussion". Though redirect can be an outcome of AfD, it's not supposed to be used to avoid finding consensus in the proper venue. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't the wrong venue. I do not feel these subjects warrant articles, and nominated them for deletion. If that means a redirect through consensus, that's fine, but you disagreeing and a subsequent discussion is the entire purpose of this page. There are no hard and fast rules concerning where things are "proper" to discuss, I opened this to discuss deletion, if you feel a redirect is more appropriate, this is the place to discuss that. This is the entire reason these matters are discussed, wherever that may be. "Procedural keep" does not mean anything; if you feel the articles should be redirected, then this is the place to state that, while it's being discussed. "Don't discuss a redirect here so that we can discuss a redirect somewhere else" doesn't make any sense; if you feel it should be redirected, then there's no reason to hold off discussing that here for the sole reason of discussing it somewhere else just for the sake of bureaucracy or "procedure". Even if there were some "prodecural error" in filing an AfD (which is your opinion), a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request, per WP:NOTBURO. - SudoGhost 02:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You can feel anything you like. There is no basis in policy for deletion here as there are obvious (and previously used) redirect targets. This would seem to be an end-around what AfD is for. You were happy with redirects here, and now feel that deletion is a better option? Hobit (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES is the basis for deletion. - SudoGhost 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

neither of which apply to a redirect.... Hobit (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

and as is very obvious, none of the nominations is a redirect. so your point is?-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That deletion isn't a reasonable outcome (while a redirect might be) and so AfD is the wrong place? I thought I was clear. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep all 1) No argument for deletion is set forward. 2) Independent, reliable sources exists for some, perhaps all, of these; the nominator assumes a particular definition of "independence" that excludes many of these independent RS without consensus to do so. 3) Almost every widespread nomination like this fails, because these are not identical articles--each has different level of sourcing, and there is no argument that the hypothetical lack of independent sources in one of the bundled articles has any bearing on the sourcing in any other bundled article. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Argument for deletion was given, that the articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. 2) No, none do. Your definition of a game book being independent for the game system it was made for was rejected by every single individual asked at WP:RSN, and no explanation has been given as to why this is independent (see the question above, the only explanation that was given has no basis in any consensus on any level, and is contradicted by WP:IS). 3) Each article has the same exact sources, they are all cut and paste from the game's sourcebooks, none of them are any different. - SudoGhost 04:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming that this single source is an independent one (which still hasn't been explained how this would be), are you suggesting that these articles pass WP:SOURCES, that these articles are based on third-party sources, because a single line in each one discusses a different sourcebook? Articles require multiple third-party sources, and required that the articles are based on such sources. These articles have zero third-party sources (not third-party publisher, those terms do not mean the same thing), and even if the third-party publisher's source were for some reason independent of the game system it was designed for, none of the articles are based on this one single source, it seems to have been added as an aside at best, and there's not enough content in the source to base an article on it. - SudoGhost 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which "particular definition of independence" we would be using, and how it would differ from independence described at WP:GNG, which merely "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". Campain source books and add-ons, even from different editors, are still affiliated to the subject and the creator in an obvious way ("This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"). I think it is rather those who which to keep the articles who are using a particular and non-consensual version of independence, and sometimes even trying to push their own essays to the detriment of actual policies. Besides, these people conveniently only refer to their twisted definition of "independence" while forgetting that sources also have to be secondary, in that they contain out-of-universe analyses of primary sources. Campain add-ons are primary source and don't contain any analysis. I'd like to see the defenders of D&D monster take part in a consensus building instead of asserting their own controversial beliefs of D&D fanatics and then leaving the discussion without answering to objections, something that could be akin to voting.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You guys keep dragging these same arguments to new venues, hoping that they will gain traction. TSR and Wizards are not the same company; Wizards is a successor in interest, and therefore independent of TSR or TSR is a predecessor of Wizards and therefore independent of Wizards. Regardless, the Paizo source is independent, as are the other discussions of the creatures, which may or may not be online, but certainly are not homogenous throughout these vastly different articles. The allegations above that all currently have the same sources may indeed be true, but a good-faith nomination requires more than looking at the articles' current state, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats completely asinine. The contents were solely published when and by first party concerns. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Paizo argument nonwithstanding (and I don't even think any Paizo products are currently even being used as references in the articles anyways), I don't understand what you're getting at with the TSR/Wizards comment at all. It doesn't matter if they're independent of each other, neither one of them is independent of the actual subject of the article. TSR, and then later when they were aquired by them, Wizards, were the official producer of D&D products, thus anything either of them publishes about D&D are not going to be independent sources from D&D subjects. That's what "independent sources" means, per Wikipedia:Independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective.". I think you may be misinterpreting the policy if you think that TSR and Wizards not being the same company means that they count as indepenent sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens' claims are not only irrelevant but completely wrong. Wizards of the Coast is not independent of TSR (or the other way around), because WotC bought TSR in 1997, for all intents and purposes, they are (or if you want to nitpick, became) the same company. And, as Rorshacma said, independent of each other or not, the fact remains that neither of them can be independent of D&D as they were each in turn the official D&D publisher, every content either from TSR or WotC is thus first party. But I don't think anyone said the issue was between TSR and WotC. The issue is between Necromancer Games and WotC, or rather between Tome of Horrors and the whole D&D brand/product line. We haven't mentionned Paizo either, but if you're referring to the Pathfinder game, it has already been acknowledged as not independent by the RSN:[2], and let's not forget that Paizo was once the editor of the official D&D magazine Dragon, any Paizo material published in Dragon issues won't be independent. My interrogations remain: which "particular definition of independence" would we be using, and how it would differ from independence described at WP:GNG ? And so, how could Tome of Horrors, which "requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"", be independent ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tome of Horrors is not even about the subject of the article- the D&D Death watch beetle - its about D20 Death watch beetle. If we change the article to Deatch watch beetle (d20 system) then again, we are in primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tome of Horrors is a D&D sourcebook, it is a D&D creature used for a D&D system.

it matters neither way. if it is a sourcebook for D&D, then it is a primary source and not an independent third party source giving more than trivial coverage. If it is not a D&D sourcebook then it is not even talking about the actual subject of the articles, the D&D monsters and its existence is completely irrelevant again in establishing the notability of the D&D monsters.. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Jclemens. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Per Jclemens has been disputed, it'd be helpful if you'd explain. These articles not only have no independent sources (it still hasn't been explained how these would be independent sources, despite numerous requests for explanation, saying it over and over doesn't make it true), but even if this one single source were independent, it supports a minor sentence in a brief "Other publishers" section. These articles are not based on third-party sources, per Wikipedia policy. Are these articles somehow excempt from Wikipedia policy, requiring articles to be based on third-party sources? - SudoGhost 05:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect all to Monster Manual. None appear to be suitable spinouts. What's the view these days on using a spurious deletion nomination to force redirects? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Those opposing the redirects seem to prefer AfDs, as do I when redirects for non-/barely notable fictional items don't stick. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge all Since when does a single third-party source establish WP:Notability, particularly if it provides information on every single fictional item? If anything, it signifies notability as a group, but not for each item, hence merge the stubs into a list (there appear to be several possible merge targets). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and renominate individually. We've seen from other discussions of D&D creatures that some can pass WP:GNG and some can't. Nominating the entire group, which I do believe was done in good faith, isn't appropriate, as it will confuse the discussion for each individual article. There's no rush to get this sorted out, so let's do it right. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• delete any which do not have independent, third party, reliable sources discussing them, which appears to be all. for example, the third party sources in Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) are talking about "Brownies" that appear in game systems OTHER than Dungeons and Dragons and are thus not about the subject of the article at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Re: the Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) article, that's actually not true; all the additional references are referring to Dungeons & Dragons. As discussed at Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)#Kenzer reference, Kenzer Kalamar references probably should not be treated as WP:IS as Kenzer was subject to editorial oversight in the D&D branded offerings at the time. Still, two reliable sources should be sufficient per WP:GNG. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• For Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons), if White Dwarf #29 is refering to D&D, then it is primary source ("written up as a player character race"). There's no indication that this source contain any external analytic or evaluative claim, only in-game content. I really don't know which would be the "two reliable sources" you're refering to, Tome of Horrors can't be among them since it's a primary source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be coy. You know I don't share your assertion that the Tome of Horrors is not an independent source, so please stop behaving as if it has been established by the consensus that it is not an independent source. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care if you don't want to accept you're wrong. If you're not able to defend your opinion, then it's wrong. ToH is primary content for D&D. Not independent, not secondary source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "I don't care if you don't want to accept you're wrong" - my, that's constructive. It's not as if I said "ToH is independent, so there, nyah." I (in responding to your factually incorrect assessment of Tome of Horrors being "officially branded D&D") explained the licensing situation of the OGL and D20STL. If you do not come to the same conclusion as me, then fine, but don't pretend that I have made no credible effort, referring to WP policy and the facts at hand to justify that position. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Given that all your efforts are based upon a fundamental minsunderstanding of policies (and I say "policies", but you're constantly refering to the essay WP:IS instead of the policy WP:GNG), I can't see how you could have made any "credible" effort. There only 2 ways to see this, and both lead to the same conclusion: ToH is primary content on D&D and thus can't be used to establish notability. Or, ToH is primary content on Necromancer Games' own D20 game, thus not about the D&D creature. Whether it is officially affiliated to D&D or not, it still doesn't contain any analytic claims and "does not discuss the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" (per the RSN comment at the Lamia talk [3]). As long as you refuse to adress these issues, you can't be credible.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:GNG is a notability guideline per the top of the WP:N page, not a policy. And the top of the WP:RSN page also says "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.", emphasis mine. BOZ (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is an essay more consensual than a guideline, then ? I don't think so. Guidelines still represent global consensus. As to WP:RSN, I never said it was official policy, but it is still not something you can ignore blindly. Especially when this particular comment only paraphrased WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• POLICY is pretty consensual WP:SOURCES: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. " There is NOTHING even close to being able to BASE any of these articles on non-primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Disruptive bad faith mass nomination. Sangrolu should be able to research sources in peace without the specter of deletion hanging over his head. CallawayRox (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• These accusations are unsubstanciated. Please always assume good faith. The nomination is based on the valid concern that the articles don't meet WP:GNG and there are already several users sharing this view. The article are almost identical in content and sourcing, and there is no clear-cut precedent in other AfDs that D&D monsters would be particularly likely to be notable, so the nominator saw in good faith a justification for a grouped nomination. If you think about it, any user taking part in any AfD has to research sources under what you call "the specter of deletion hanging over his head". If you want to oppose to this AfD, please do it with a valid argumentation, not with comments on the nominator based on assumed bad faith.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• the user is free to research in peace without the spectre of deletion by working on articles in xir sandbox until they have found substantial coverage in reliable third party sources and then moving to article space. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The point still stands that they should redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters at a minimum and deletion is out of the question. CallawayRox (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete all, either as very very very non-notable fictional creatures, or as minor adaptations of common fantasy/myth creatures (and in at least one case, a real-world animal). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete These "creatures" are merely features of the Dungeons & Dragons gaming system. There are no third party sources cited that provide information on them. The only sources are rule books for the game, published by the games manufacturer and its licencees.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (preferred option) or Redirect. These are entirely sourced to non-independent sources. Licensees are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all and Redirect the resulting blank titles to the approprate monster lists. I looked at every article here. Not one has any independent, reliable, secondary sources - or, for that matter, any secondary sources at all. TSR, WotC, Pazio, Dragon magazine, the pubisher of Tomb of Horrors - these are are all primary sources. While primary sources are inded acceptable for the establishement of facts, they can not be used to establish notability. No notability of any sort is established here - and, in fact, it cannot. Only a very few of the most iconic D&D monsters - beholders, mind flayers, and the like - are notable enough to have sufficent secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. These creatures have little to no "presence" outside of the game itself; there are simply no reliable, secondary sources that could be used to establish any form of notabiity. As a group, they are notable enough for inclusion in the lists of monsters, but invidivually, the are not, and cannot become, notable enough for stand-alone articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all and Redirect per Bushranger and others above. Hell, I think we could have made a good argument that it shoudl be Speedy as well, as these were merely restorations of previously removed content per the decisions of prior AFDs. These are all relatively minor beasties in D&D, and the all fail WP:GNG by a wide margin. All sources are primary and trivial in the sense that they don't discuss importance or overall impact or anything, just in-game info. There's not one bit of anything to justify their existence as standalone Wikipedia articles. The deletion is necessary to prevent merely reverting back to the old versions, and the fact that this came back in such a controversial way is proof of that necessity. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting assertion... You're saying every one of these had a prior AfD? I find that interesting that these previous AfD's were not linked before. Would you mind adding them? Also... Even if these AfDs are found, did each of them result in decisions that complied with WP:ATD? If so, then they would have only been redirected, which means that, at best, a speedy redirect outcome may have been appropriate, assuming all the facts are as you assert. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The above assertion is incorrect; an examination of the edit history of the above articles indicates that (as far as I can see) none of them were ever AFD'd. The majority of the articles were initially created as redirects within the last 6 months and only 5 that I could see predate 1 January 2012.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the nominator asserted that ALL were created as redirects in the nomination statement, but a spot check of three shows that Cooshee appears to have been created as an article. How many more were? Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Crabman, Aurumvorax and Al-mi'raj (Dungeons & Dragons) were created initially as articles as well. Most of the others were created as redirects by either User:BOZ or User:Polisher of Cobwebs early in 2012, subsequently extended into articles by one of two IP-only editors, edited further by various registered and unregistered users, and then converted back to redirects by User:Folken de Fanel without discussion. Revert of this redirect by User:Polisher of Cobwebs spawned this AFD. There has been no "back and forth" between article and redirect until FdF's edits - which I would consider to be the start of the WP:BRD cycle.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, sadly, since independent coverage can't be located. Hekerui (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep throwing so many AfD's at the wall at once just to see which ones stick sounds like an editor with axe to grind. If these were seriously considered Afds then we would do them one at a time to establish consensus or merge as appropriate for each individual article in their due process. This looks much more like an attempt to get some articles deleted by overwhelming the editors looking for resources. Research takes time and not enough time per article has been give here. Web Warlock (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have any actual policy based reason? There is ZERO preventing anyone from providing evidence that any one (or all) of these has recieved significant coverage by third party reliable sources, and yet none has come forth.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I have found third-party.independently published sources for every AfD I have ever been involved in. I can do the same here for all of these, I can think of four or five right now. But that takes time to do proper research and time has been taken away from those that would like to do the research in this mass AfD. I have books and magazines and articles from newspapers that span over 30 years, I have to sit down and read through them all. It takes time and attention to detail unlike copy-pasting an AfD tag on a couple dozen articles. Web Warlock (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Though I don't doubt of your good faith, experience (which includes around or maybe more than 50 AfDs over 4 years on D&D creatures) has shown us that sources you could find aren't likely to meet the criteria set in WP:GNG. If you are thinking about coverage in magazines like Dragon, Dungeon, or White Dwarf, they are non-idependent publication which often publish primary content that cannot be used to establish notability, just like RPG sourcebooks which are primary sources. Actually making one article notable per the GNG would strengthen your request to unbundle (and the nominator, SudoGhost, has already said he would change the AfD in that case), but right now I don't think merely claiming you can find sources is enough to counter-balance our experience that D&D creatures are not notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  ... Except that White Dwarf (magazine) is Games Workshop, not TSR or WotC, and unquestionably independent... Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Right up to the bit where they " obtained official distribution rights to Dungeons & Dragons and other TSR products in the UK" making them a licensee. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If they were in a licensing situation which constitutes a "significant relationship" per WP:IS at the time of the publication, they may not meet the criteria of independence per WP:GNG, putting them in much the same boat as Kenzer. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This interpretation of licensing is nonsensical--that is, since these are copyrighted elements, there must be a license to use them (including the SRD, of course), but anything that's licensed would be inherently non-independent. This is conflating two different policies, intended for different things, to eliminate coverage of the notable elements of an extremely notable fictional franchise. That excessively narrow reading of "independence" would make it impossible to cover GNU software, for instance, because of the GPL. Independence is about not regurgitating press releases and similar output. These aren't those, not by any stretch of the imagination. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? TechCompany puts out GNU software. TechCompany writes about their software: Insufficient to establish notability, they are a primary source. Wired writes about the software: Generally fine, third party source covering the subject of the article, the GNU licensed software. However, if Wired is the parent company of TechCompany or if Wired merely prints the code of the software, then no there is no significant third party coverage about the software. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But by downloading GNU software to write about it, Wired has become a licensee, and is therefore not independent of the subject--at least under the "licensee != independent" rationale. You see the problem? Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

absolutely untrue. the author may have downloaded the software and become an licensee to USE the software, but Wired is still fully and freely able to determine whether or not to publish review. Neither the author of Deathwatch Beetle entry nor the publisher of Tome of Horrors is in any way independent of the licensing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy your logic. I've articulated how licensees can be independent editorially of the licensor, yet you refuse to accept it. Not much more I can do to convince you, I'm afraid, so I'll just agree to disagree. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no interpretation, Jclemens, it's just called reading. "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Note: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations."
Jclemens, you have an excessively narrow (and non-consensual) way of reading this passage by conveniently reducing it to just "press releases" and pretending the other elements don't exist, in order to force inclusion of non-notable elements from, indeed, an extremely notable fictional franchise which notability cannot be inherited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You say there's no interpretation, and then you hang your argument on the definition of "strong connection". I think you just scored an own goal, there. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no interpretation, WP:GNG does assimilate affiliation to a lack of independence. Independence is indeed not just "avoiding press releases", contrary to what you said.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you completely neglected the point I just made. Your two sentences are unconnected. Would you mind paring back the volume of your contributions to this page, and instead focus on quality of argument? I'm sure the closing admin wouldn't mind. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how my two sentences would be unconnected, your contention was that independence "is about not regurgitating press releases and similar output" and thus that conflict of interest in any form (affiliation) wasn't impacting independence. Which is wrong. My two sentences are part of the same discussion on the meaning and different elements of the concept of "independence" as described in WP:GNG, they are connected. Note that this doesn't prevent you to try to argue that licencing is not always conflict of intereest, which can be a valid assertion in some cases. But your argument on GW is nonesensical, linking two different cases that have nothin in common - one is a licence to use content, the other is a full commercial distribution contract making GW a first-party distributor. So yes, you can try argue that GW wouldn't have a "strong enough connection" with D&D, I just don't see any consensus happening on that any time soon, though.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, my personal perception of the character of White Dwarf is such that I believe they did not have any great degree of editorial oversight by TSR. That being said, having an exclusive license to distribute D&D products does imply a relationship that suggests a conflict of interest. So while I am willing to accept things like OGL and GPL licensing situations as being free of conflict of interest, lacking further public information about the licensing situation between TSR and GW, I'm not willing to assert that material published by GW at the time qualifies as WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do tend to go through the White Dwarf mags more, because those are the ones I like. I can also use Dungeoneer, Challenge Magazine, Pyramid and White Wolf Magazine. I can also focus on the WDs before their association with TSR/D&D. I have plenty of material, what I have not been given is time in this mass-AFD. And don't talk to me about sandboxes, because I have had THOSE deleted on me as well. What would have been proper is propose a merge first. Web Warlock (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is what I see. I see a large list that apparently the nominator went through in alphabetical order for the sole purpose of making sure that least some were deleted knowing full well that the burden would be on the people working on keeping the articles. And while sources are sought out accusations of "bad faith" are thrown at people trying to keep the articles. If this is not an example of bad-faith AfDs I am not sure what is. I may be wrong, but my desire to contribute around here is much less. Web Warlock (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Through the lens of your keyboard it may look that way to you, but allow me to state what I see. What I see is a large number of articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES and editors keeping them as articles under the logic that the sources currently in the articles are sufficient, and asking those that disagree to "start an AfD". I see that all of these articles are, to my reckoning, identical in their failure to meet these guidelines and policies, and not a single person has (to my knowledge) shown that any of these articles are different in this regard. These are bad articles, sourcing-wise. Third-party independent sources are required so that articles can have a neutral point of view, the requirement of which is a core policy. If an article is incapable of having a truly neutral point of view, then the article's presence is doing readers a disservice by its existence. If these articles are deleted or redirected, the appropriate article/merge target would then be where editor effort is placed, an article that can abide by WP:GNG, WP:SOURCES, and WP:NPOV. To me this is a net gain for Wikipedia.

At no point does bad faith come into play (I don't know where "bad faith accusations" were directed at people asking the keep the article, the only thing I do see is individuals accusing me of bad faith). I don't see these articles (especially parenthetical disambiguations) as being likely search terms, so I nominated them for deletion. Where is the bad faith in that? Since it seems there are a number of editors that agree with my assessment on at least some level, do you think it's possible that maybe it's just a disagreement on this matter, as opposed to "bad faith" and maliciousness on my part? - SudoGhost 04:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note that the content has now been transwiki'd to Wikibooks to be merged into the D&D book. QU ^TalkQu 08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment about striking out three articles - As per my comments, I've struck out three of the articles, since additional references have been added. I don't think they fit within the scope of this AfD. - SudoGhost 04:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So you're basing your revision (which, by the way, I applaud) on the fact that editors, working under the time crunch here have actually found and added sources to some of these articles, right? Can you please explain the level of pre-work (per WP:BEFORE) that went into assuring that no such sources existed, prior to this nomination? We're all agreed that 1) the sourcing wasn't adequate on any of these, and that 2) if the sourcing exists (not "is in the article", exists), then inclusion in this group is inappropriate, yes? So... Now that we've found that at least three of the included articles didn't belong in this group, what assurance do we have that all of the rest of these wouldn't have sources, if adequate time and effort were invested in finding such sources? Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What is this "time crunch" you're referring to? I waited over two weeks to see if any of these articles would be improved upon in any way whatsoever, and none were. I have to ask, what article could possibly be sent to AfD where it wouldn't suddenly be a "time crunch", and why would this timeliness be a factor? This wasn't some out of the blue thing where there was no prior discussion on any level. Yes, I did search online for each and every entry before adding it, this wasn't some hastily thrown together AfD. I do not believe that these additions to the three articles give them sufficient notability to warrant an article, but I created this AfD concerning the articles that completely and unquestioningly (to me, at least) fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. Striking out the three articles was and is a good-faith attempt at compromising, not because I believe they now have sufficient sources. AfD is not the final say on an article's existence, "adequate time and effort" has existed and will continue to exist even if the articles are deleted or redirected. - SudoGhost 05:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You do realize that many of us only or primarily work on AfD'ed articles, to act as a safety net against deletions that are net negatives to the encyclopedia, right? In addition to all my other duties, I take time for this, because preserving encyclopedic content against non-policy-based deletion rationales is important to me. So, within this week (or so) period, you expect people to go through and find and add sources for all of these? That would be reasonable if there was a pretty strong belief that none of them had sourcing. Yet, you looked for all of them, and your efforts were false negatives (coverage existed, you didn't find it) on three of them. Again, I applaud you for that realization, but doesn't it seriously bring into question whether any of the rest of these are likewise false negatives? The editors who have the best familiarity with this topic (which doesn't include me; I haven't played D&D since 1st ed AD&D) assert that sources exist but that arbitrarily compressing their volunteer efforts into a finite timeline such as an AfD will overwhelm their availability to find the sources that exist. So far, they're proving to be right... And, of course, notability only requires that sources exist, not that they be edited into the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Non-policy-based deletion rationales? WP:SOURCES is policy, part of a core policy. You're still talking about these sources as if I said they made these articles notable in some way; I did not, and it appears other editors in the AfD agree that (many, if not all of) these sources are not notable/independent. I'm not saying that makes it an absolute truth, just that your assessment about "false negatives" isn't necessarily an agreed upon statement. The insistence that sources must exist doesn't show the notability of an article. The three were struck as a good-faith compromise, not as a realization that any of these articles are notable in some way. - SudoGhost 07:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse stiking and compromise. This is not a !vote (I already voted above) but an encouragment for all users to find a way forward. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking the time and boldness to take a step forward. I still beleive that each of these merits their own research as each takes considerable time to find references for individually.
  That being said, with the mind that this compromise will be accepted, I no longer think Brownie can be regarded as having an additional WP:RS in White Dwarf; it appears White Dwarf was operating under license with TSR that may compromise it as a WP:RS. Similarly, a user has come forth and identified that other of these creatures exist in other Pathfinder bestiary products like Caryatid Column, but it may be (may, more research is needed) the case that these products are edits of Tome of Horrors material, which may compromise their secondary nature. Based on current research, the only one I would clearly assert has sufficient resources that it stands apart from the rest is Adherer, which has Misfit Monsters Redeemed, which is not just a Bestiary-style product but contains additional ecology and "use in game" style information.-Sangrolu (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the first thing should be to clear up confusion as to the nature of primary and secondary sources when dealing with fictional works, and also on "independence of the subject" per WP:GNG (for example, can a commercial book producing an original work of fiction, or having been granted rights to commercially reproduce a previously existing work of fiction, be regarded as an independent source of analysis on this very work of fiction ?). Conclusions to these discussions could seriously impact various policies and guidelines such as WP:PSTS or WP:WAF, and have repercutions on many other topics than just D&D. Piling up sources that might be invalidated as a result of these conclusions seems to me like a waste of time right now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep self confessed failure to do WP:BEFORE]. CallawayRox (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Utter ridiculousness and false "Yes, I did search online for each and every entry before adding it, this wasn't some hastily thrown together AfD." amongst other strong evidence of BEFORE. and yet another "process" based claim that still provides zero evidence of bare minimum standards that actual third party reliable sources that provide signficant coverage of the subject. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• You've already !voted to speedy keep it above. I don't know how you jumped to this conclusion, but please don't admonish someone for not following WP:BASIC (which is inaccurate) by ignoring the section right above it, WP:AFDFORMAT, which says "do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." I've stuck this second "Speedy keep" of yours to avoid confusion. - 22:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)