Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolth

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 Drow. (non-admin closure) Kori (@) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lolth

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

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

Non-notable D&D character that fails WP:GNG. Almost no mentions in reliable sources and nothing significant enough to merit its own article, though it could potentially be redirected to Drow. Wikia-level fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Drow per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drow. The article is sourced almost entirely to primary sources, and the League of Legends sources do not even mention the subject, meaning that this character fails WP:GNG. The article contains nothing that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drow, per Devonian Wombat. She is actually pretty amply covered in that article, and I'm not seeing much that would require a WP:SPLIT. As, even in fiction, her importance is pretty much tied directly to her people, and pretty much all sources discuss them together, it makes more sense to cover them together as well. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drow. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now leaning towards keep per comments below. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. In addition to the ones present in the article I have found four more secondary sources. They all have their short-comings, but some do not readily fit into the drow article, so its hard to decide for me which would be the better course. The sources are:
- Magic, Monsters, and Make-Believe Heroes - the section here is very short and close to the primary material.
- Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy - this is mostly the influence of Lolth on drow society, so could easily be beneficial also in a merge.
- Lilith und Lolth - very interesting German comparison between the fictional and the real-world goddess/mythological figure; it's a blog entry, but by a respectable academic on the platform of a respectable academic publisher.
- There and Back Again - Tolkien, Gamers, and the Remediation of Exclusion through Fantasy Media - academic paper, the section on Lolth is short but adds a new dimension by analysing the social or psycholocial background of the figure, possible mysogynic, and so on. Daranios (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent finds. It's a shame that Stang's paper "Spider-Women, Hybridity, and Female Monstrosity in Role-Playing Games" hasn't been published (yet) - that's what "There and Back Again" is citing. I think there's enough here to support an independent article - it's just a question of whether it makes more sense to cover drow and Lolth separately. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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