Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) (3rd nomination)

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

The result was no consensus‎. Currently, those arguing keep point to extensive coverage of the topic in various sources. Those arguing to delete or redirect the article criticize the reliability and independence of some of these sources. It does not seem that there is clear consensus right now as to whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines. There is a solid push to redirect and/or merge the article, but again there does not seem to be a clear consensus to do so. I am skeptical that time will result in more clarity, so I am closing this discussion for now. Given the article's deletion and recreation history, I will not be surprised to see a fourth AfD in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

[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)

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources added to the article since the last AFD, ~~but failing that merge to Centaurs in popular culture~~. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centaurs in popular culture - The non-primary sourced material is extremely minimal, being largely either the same very obvious "Centaurs are based on mythological Centaurs" statement that was deemed insufficient in the last AFD, or a couple of sentences in what are essentially game guides. Some are literally just one-sentence mentions stating that "Centaurs are half-horse", making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing to indicate that the D&D specific version of centaurs either pass the WP:GNG, nor are any more notable than any of the other entries in the Centaurs in popular culture list that would justify making the existing entry any longer. Rorshacma (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Rorshacma; once the excessive details from D&D handbooks is discounted, there is not enough coverage for a separate article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accepts (and obviously many do not) that the topic is 'centaur', then the D&D sources are themselves non-trivial reliable sources independent of 'centaur' as a topic. Now, that may take a bit to wrap one's mind around, but centaur is a public domain concept, used in plenty of contemporary fiction and entertainment media. Why is what Gary Gygax & co. wrote problematic, but what Rick Riordan wrote acceptable? It is nothing more than an artifact of how the topic of 'centaur' is split up into multiple articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on centaurs in Rick Riordan's books, I would presumably vote to redirect that as well. I don't see how "D&D didn't invent centaurs" is supposed to prove "D&D handbooks are independent coverage of the topic of centaurs in D&D". Walsh90210 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough non-handbook (and non-WotC) sources have been presented that I'm striking my redirect vote. Some merge might still be reasonable; that could be proposed later. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the small coverage in book sources + more extensive sources in various web article like this one, which do provide commentary on their relevance. Failing that, merge to Centaurs in popular culture - there is new content now not present at the target, and I plan to add some more. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Centaurs in popular culture (or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons), or merge as compromise. Several sources do not meet our WP:RS standards, and in total they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the editors who are striving for WP:CONSENSUS by suggesting more than one !vote preference. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is present, merging is impossible at this point due to the size of the article. Agree with @Jclemens basing on this essay. Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [1] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the basic description of Valnet sources in the section (The paragraph above the individual cells). There's case by case uses per each source's use clause (Namely TheGamer being considered reliable and stuff like Android Police and MakeUseOf being considered generally unreliable in all use cases) but most sources that fall into the marginally reliable category tend to fall under the umbrella description I quoted above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sources are inadequate and do not meet standards of WP:RS or offer significant reliable prose that can be written. Jontesta (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2024 (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.