Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apparition (Dungeons & Dragons)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

No element proving notability. All sources are primary and from the official D&D publishers, failing WP:GNG which requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject or its creator. Google Books and Scholar didn't give any result besides the game books themselves. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we can read in the Tome of Horrors introduction:
"Between the covers of this tome are Third Edition conversions of all your favorite monsters from First Edition that the offcial books left behind [...] You won’t ﬁnd any of the monsters in Tome of Horrors in any other official Wizards of the Coast product! 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 So, you can rest assured that the contents of this book will not be superceded by any later “official” book {...] Since many of the monsters in this book were conversions of creatures from earlier editions, it was important to us to attempt to credit the original author. We did our best to be as thorough as possible. Yet because many of the creatures have their true origin in Original Dungeons & Dragons or from sources such as Strategic Review magazine or TSR U.K., we were forced to limit our research to a monster’s first appearance in an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons product"
Thus, Tome of Horrors isn't independent at all, the writers just copy/pasted 1st edition monsters and adapted them to 3rd edition rules (so for all intents and purposes, this is a TSR book), and secured a deal with WotC to make their book an official supplement to the 3rd edition. This is purely primary, not secondary (as it contains no discussion of "the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" of Apparition, per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [1]), and affiliated. Cannot be used for notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll exaplain what actually happened, so that no one gets confused. Necromancer Games wrote a proposal, including a list of a few hundred creatures they wanted to use, and send it to Wizards of the Coast. Wizards told them which monsters they still had plans to use, and told Necromancer they could use the rest (although, in a few cases, Wizards did later wind up re-using a few that they OK'ed to be in the Tome of Horrors). It is demonstrably false that "the writers just copy/pasted 1st edition monsters" into the Tome of Horrors, as can be easily verified by anyone who has that book and any of the original sources. Likewise, I can see no evidence that the statements that "for all intents and purposes, this is a TSR book" and that Necromancer "secured a deal with WotC to make their book an official supplement to the 3rd edition" have any validity whatsoever. BOZ (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) So you do confirm the validity of my statement that the book was released under a deal with WotC that the creatures appearing in ToH won't appear in any WotC book, making it an official supplement to creatures not in WotC's books. Otherwise, why bother contacting WotC instead of just making a new game including these monsters under the d20 system ? And why the fear of being "superceded" by another WotC book and thus working with them to ensure it won't happen ? ToH is clearly seen as a D&D supplement, as indicated by the note that "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®", and the fact that its content was conditioned by WotC's commercial intentions makes it an affiliated work, not independent. If, by its author's own admission, the book is useless without an official D&D product, then I see no validity in the claim that it would be "independent".
2) I note that you didn't answer to my remarks about the book being a primary source devoid of any "out of context" comment/analytive claims, thus you agree that it doesn't prove any notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tome of Horrors isn't an independent source, as I established beyond doubt earlier, care to comment about that ? Where is the "significant coverage" from "multiple sources" ? Otherwise, your comment is a violation of WP:AFDFORMAT and may be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the closing admin will be able to make up his or her own mind what to ignore or not. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You "established beyond doubt"? Nice that you are confident, but let's not pretend that independence of the source is not at least a gray area. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"...Seems pretty clear, no ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:BOZ as above. And Folken de Fanel is politely reminded of WP:CIVIL.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think BOZ is fundamentally correct that Tome of Horrors is more than just a copy/paste job. That said, it is only a single reference (insufficient for WP:GNG). More to point, this creature is a trivial one in the context of the game and it seems to be a more specific instance of a ghost. I don't believe enough reliable sources exist out there to distinguish it to merit the existence of its own article. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. The Steve 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ due to a lack of significant coverage in third party sources to WP:Verify notability. Would also support deletion, but merge seems to be more in the spirit of compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.