Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures

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 Keep This does not of course preclude the relisting of articles individually or the merging of articles. There is no consensus for deletion here, and I find no overriding policy to bypass the consensus. I'll disclose that I have discounted or assigned less weight to arguments presented "I like it" and "I don't like it" and arguments presented by what appears to me, to be single purpose accounts. Regards, . Navou ^banter 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Navou failed to do so, I will point out that this was a non-administrator close. i ^said 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons creatures

(View log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, because there seems to be a strong majority consensus above to do so. I think merging in this case would only produce overly long articles and so in this instance, the separate articles probably work best. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By my count there are 9 keeps, 1 close (keep?), 1 merge, and a whole bunch of rebutting by the nominator. In that light, I'd like to politely suggest that it looks like snow. In other words, the D&D folks are never going to to see eye-to-eye with Eyrian over this. —Travis ^talk 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The gamer's guides do not make these individual creatures, as D&D monsters, notable. At the very least, merge them into a list, that is very pared down. i ^said 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of novels?--71.107.174.221 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep D&D and its characters are notable, and many people may find this information useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.170.120 (talk) 02:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have no intention at ever looking at these articles again (I sampled one or two now to see if there was content). I think there is sufficient, and the sources seem appropriate for the material. I'd say to keep them all for now, and let those who care decide which are minor enough to merge. It does not add an air of lack of seriousness to WP. Anyone who knows of DD and also of WP would expect to find this subject treated very extensively here. It's not being here is what would seem peculiar. DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say pare down and merge anything particular to D&D (such as, off the top of my head, mindflayers, beholders, aboleths, slaadi, etc) into a "List of D&D creatures" article. Delete any of the ones that are basically no different from mythology (that is, not unique to D&D), such as succubi, or angels. If deleting is unpalatable, merge those ones into the articles of their respective mythological forebears, clearly denoting which content is game-related so that the casual reader doesn't become confused. ♠P M C♠ 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Several of these articles are already a list of dozens of creatures consolidated into one article. There are over a dozen references listed in Golem alone. Although I might be convinced that some articles should be deleted, I refuse to accept the submitted list as is, because this should be discussed on an article by article basis. Turlo Lomon 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles for now; Chastise nom for attempting a PokeDeletion in re D&D. I suspect that the nom has an unused grindstone sitting around and a dull axe to grind, and is deciding to whet it on D&D articles. Submit the articles individually, and do NOT use Ratman as precedent. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and relist individually, as the outcome for some of the listed articles will be different than others, and I'm not comfortable making an umbrella decision to cover them all at once. spazure (contribs) 09:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is a guideline and not a policy, which, according to the guideline itself, may have exceptions from time to time. I would argue that the articles are notable in the first place but even if not should be the "occasional exception." The sources are the equivalent in some cases to self published material but there are other sources that are not. However, taking all things in context and with a view as to whether the encyclopedia is better with or without the articles, I think we should keep them. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I keep hearing replies that this nomination is misguided, that there are independent sources, etc. Well: where are they? Why should this article get a pass on having no independent importance when so many others do not? Why is proof by assertion sufficient here? As for WP:POINT, how am I gaming the system or acting in bad faith? I genuinely believe that these articles do not meet notability, as they have no independent sources. Concerning the decision to list several, there are about 200 entries in the D&D monster category. They should mostly be deleted. People complain if many articles are listed at once. These articles are all basically the same, and should be treated the same. --Eyrian 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

- Even if they don't have third-party sources, so what? Can Eyrian explain what good will come out of deleting them?--71.107.174.221 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Item: I am generally averse to voting on multiple articles under the one AFD; Item: this represents the thing end of a wedge-berg, since it impacts on all RPG articles; Item: I concur with the "all or nothing" P-o-V -- these things are either allowed or disallowed on principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or not, but I don't see how "Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources" applies, since nobody is asking anyone to rely on Wikipedia editors for any particular article content. At most, it's a question of Wikipedia editors being asked to decide what's appropriate for Wikipedia, which is not the same at all. As far as I know, nobody is arguing that everything in these articles can't be found in sources independent of any Wikipedia editor, but if they aren't, that's a particular concern, not a broad-based one. And no matter how much you beat the notability drum, it's not very convincing. Why? Because you're arguing it as the rule to follow, but not providing a sufficient argument as to why it should be applied. That is not convincing, it's rather the opposite in my experience. Seriously, you're not coming across as persuasive to me, and I think the biggest part of it is a failure to articulate your position in a meaningful way. Perhaps you might wish to start working from a position of what articles merit keeping, and which merging, instead of further AFDs? FrozenPurpleCube 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Official sources do not strike you as very neutral? You do know that these are fictional creatures, right? Whatever the authors write about these creatures is automatically true.--71.107.174.221 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (or, at worst, merge into larger articles) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment ~~Nom's talk page is suggesting he's trying to alter WP:NOT to suit his aims in this AfD.~~-Text redacted by -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} Also on there is a thread that I find disturbing - one where he's chastised for ignoring consensus on an AfD for Cheshire Cat in popular culture. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I have made no reference to WP:NOT here. It's all about WP:NOTE. Please actually read the relevant pages (discussions, etc) before simply trying to sling mud. --Eyrian 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I redacted my first statement above. However, the second one should stand. I don't mean to sling mud, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. I've explained my reasoning there. --Eyrian 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

However, the fact that you disregarded consensus is a bit of cause for concern, especially since it was an AfD. I understand your reasoning; what I can't fathom is why you would create a redirect instantly without asking for a review of the AfD or actually working to make the article better. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am incapable of making that article better. There is no better. It's a lost cause. If others want to try, the history is right there for them to work on. DRV has been avoided for the moment because I can only juggle so many things at once, and people should be given a chance to take a shot at improving it. This is, however, becoming increasingly tangential. --Eyrian 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I understand your concerns about the editor, Jéské; I think, though, that personal issues aside we should try to stick to what he's doing in this debate, which is saying, quote: "notability, notability, notability," when just about everyone else is saying that even if it were a rule, it would be ignored per consensus. A guideline allows even more flexibility, and due to the notability of the over-arching game, and the fact that the "non-independence" of the sources is a matter of opinion, a retension of these articles, even allowing for future discussion of them individually, seems pretty obvious. In any event, we still have to deal with this AfD as it stands. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no, Zahakiel, if the rule says one thing, and misinformed editors say another, the rule always wins, as the rule is determined by the community at large rather than a SiG. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Neil ム 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Oh, I've read it. Here's a highlight from the top: "Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). 'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time, consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." Now, that's just about the content of pages. What you're talking about here is an entire set of articles that have remained for some time. But what I am talking about is the consensus of this AfD, which is even more clear. One editor is making a noise about pop/culture and trivia sections that have been on Wikipedia with not only the consent, but the active contribution of a large number of editors and administrators; then bringing that to bear on a massive deletion discussion. To lump all those content with the status quo together under the convenient label of "misinformed" is rather crass, certainly self-serving, and absolutely inaccurate. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: - What "rule" are you talking about, anyway? Notability? That's a useful guideline, when it's not lawyered to death. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are expected / required to illustrate the notability of their subjects. Failure to do so is usually a reason to rewrite the article. If it is impossible to show why the subject is notable, it's usually a pretty good reason for deletion (it's often a reason for speedy deletion). Yes, notability is a guideline, not a policy. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Neil ム 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've got no problem with that. In fact, some of my major contributions involve and have involved finding reliable sources for articles that have long been without them. I certainly don't think the guideline is wrong; what I am saying is that I believe sufficient notability can be established from the sources provided. "Independent" is not something strictly defined in Wikipedia policy; it does not necessarily mean the material has to come from entirely different publishing companies, which appears to be the demand of the nominator while citing the WP:NOTE guideline as if this was an explicit requirement of the "letter of the law." It's not; the guidelines are intended to be more widely read than that... or they would indeed be policy. And again, even there policy is subject to IAR in some rare occasions, so even then it would not be iron-clad. This is orders of magnitude away from a clear-cut case of deletable material. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not one independent source. Not one sourced explanation of why these fictional game components are of any encyclopaedic value. There is also not one argument to keep based in any kind of Wikipedia policy. All the sources do is prove these creatures exist; this does not make them notable. We do not have articles for each monster in Super Mario World or for each block in Tetris - how is this any different? I am aware that this has no chance of being deleted, as there is a very dedicated group of editors who love this stuff. It would have been better nominating just one article, as a test case. Neil ム 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. Is this WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST? (Unsurprisingly wikipedia does have articles on Super Mario Monsters) Artw 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking more like the little walking mushrooms and things. Bowser is a character, not a monster. Creatures in Dungeons and Dragons would be sufficient for all the generic creatures. Neil ム 21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not as unpalatable as deleting all the content... but then why did you !vote for "delete all," rather than "merge all," which seems to be what you're referring to here. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because these articles are so numerous and overwritten (IMO). The effor required in merging would be more than the effort required to create a new article. Or even a set of articles (such as D&D fey, D&D undead, D&D humanoids, whatever, etc). Neil ム 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah... i've seen a lot of people try to invoke WP:ITSHARD to avoid doing what they genuinely believe is best for the encyclopedia. I think there would be people willing to invest that effort. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re Neil's argument - that's one of the arguments opponents of the Mass Pokemon Species Megamerger used to try and justify keeping them in separate articles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what (I think) Neil is saying. If the objective is a single merged article that complies with policy, it would be more effort to try and merge these articles than to just create the new one from scratch. --Eyrian 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - if people preferred to merge the current articles, no problems. Neil ム 08:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would actually be somewhat concerned about the idea of a putative "Creatures in D&D" article. Would it be about the origins of the various creatures? Or appearances? Usages? Changes over the different editions? It might be possible to do something, but....I imagine it would be quite hard and a lengthy process. This isn't a simple subject, but a complex one that would require deep thought before proceeding. Of course, it you do want to start that process, you're welcome to do so, but I don't suggest starting from AFDs. FrozenPurpleCube 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "usage" would not be encyclopaedic, other than in the broadest sense. Neil ム 08:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind that a few of these articles refer not to specific creatures, but rather to categories of creatures and how they fit into the D&D Mythos (for example, Angel describes how angels fit into the world's cosmology). The equivalent is an article on Demons in Catholicism; specific demons might not be notable, but the concept of demons would be. And does anyone think that an article on demons that only cited Church publications would be deleted because of WP:NOTE. I think instead the consensus would be as here appears to be; let's find less-dependent sources. OcciMoron 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cleanup - Having thousands of short articles on every critter in the D&D meta-bestiary doesn't make sense, but they could be merged into one master list with links to separate pages for identifiable groups. The Golem (Dungeons & Dragons) article is an example of the kind of grouping I'm talking about. However, beyond that there should be more info on the antecedents of the D&D ideas... for instance, there is no mention in that article of the connection between Talos and the 'Iron Golem' despite the re-use of the name 'Talos' in D&D. The Jewish Golem tradition is mentioned, but the similarities in supposed construction between those and the D&D stone golems are not detailed. Review to make sure all examples are included (e.g. Warforged from Eberron, Crystal Golems from Psionics Handbook, Mist Golems from Greyhawk, et cetera), more references, and info on usage/influence outside D&D (e.g. 'Tiamat' now being called a multi-headed dragon in various media despite the original mythological being having only one head) would also be good. Individual articles can be kept for now, but the wikiprojects should be working towards merging them. --CBD 11:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It bears pointing out that the majority of the hundreds of D&D creature articles are absolute fucking garbage, their content either infinitesimal or nonexistent and they're laid out apparently according to some harebrained scheme concocted by the relevant Wikiproject, crewed, apparently, by monkeys. As such, something needs to be done, whether it is complete category-wide deletion and salting (which is what I advocate) or some limp-wristed merger compromise that will only lead to less bad articles, but no overall improvement in article quality. --Agamemnon2 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest trying to work with users in a more friendly and hospitable fashion than this. I certainly agree there's a lot of room for improvement, but there are better ways to obtain that improvement than this kind of thing. FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing you can do. No amount of magic-wand-waving will make these articles satisfy the notability guidelines. --Agamemnon2 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Who was talking about that? I was talking about working with other users. FrozenPurpleCube 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I must've misunderstood your intent somehow. As it stands, I've really no interest in "assuming good faith" or "trying to get along". I'm too embittered for that anymore. I calls them as I sees them, and to me, a spade is a spade, if you catch my meaning. --Agamemnon2 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're embittered then that's likely to color your perceptions and treatment of others, and as such is not a good way to proceed, as it's likely to be less effective and more hurtful than need be. A positive outlook of improvement and working together may be hard to manage, but it's certainly important to Wikipedia as a whole. I suggest you see what you can do to improve your outlook. FrozenPurpleCube 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Some people never learn, do they. Burntsauce 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a list. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (emphasis added) and "The reliability of a source depends on the context". I'm increasingly of the opinion that fans of notability as a concept are fetishizing "independent sources", to the extent that if it hasn't been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal it doesn't merit mention in Wikipedia. The sources used for these articles are reliable for the subject of Dungeons & Dragons. The fact that most of them are licensed media is irrelevant, or at least should be. The mere fact that there is sufficient interest in Dungeons & Dragons to support all these different sources in different media should be an indicator that Dungeons & Dragons subjects are notable. Wikipedia: Five pillars says that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." A specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons would include entries on these creatures; therefore, Wikipedia can as well. Of course the articles can use more sourcing and real-world context, per lots of folks above; but I don't see a justification for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a monster in a game use that game's rules as evidence of notability? Therefore, is every monster in every game that has ever been published notable? Why or why not? --Eyrian 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  - You obviously don't understand. THEY ARE NOT ONLY IN GAMES AND GAME GUIDES. These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games).--71.107.174.221 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I get a funny image of a poor little kobold trying to argue it's notable by pointing to the rule book. More seriously though, it's actually a bit more complicated than just saying it exists within the rules. I would suggest having a special book about the "monster" (such as done with Beholders, Mind Flayers and Illithid) or the monster itself having some wider notability beyond just being in the monster manual, such as the Drow Elves. But honestly, I'm not convinced this is definitive, it's just a few brief thoughts and would need to be extensively examined to establish any kind of position or guidelines. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed books based on the game from the same publisher? Even if those weren't closely linked, I sincerely doubt there's any kind of substantial coverage. --Eyrian 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, fifty to a hundred pages on a given subject? I think something encyclopedic could be done there. YMMV. FrozenPurpleCube 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - To clarify: I think that in cases like this a strict interpretation of "sources independent of the subject" is contrary to Wikipedia's culture, goals, and established consensus. These monsters have numerous sources in the D&D novels, magazines, different editions of the game, and so forth. It's not just one source. I feel like if there are enough sources from different media, the subject is obviously notable and the fact that the sources have a licensing arrangement with the copyright owner is immaterial. In the case of major media franchises, the criteria in WP:NOTE are flawed, and should be revisited. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, merge, merge! For lack of "third party reliable sources". Presumeably some information has been published about these creatures apart from official manuals and licensed media, however, I see very little evidence that it appeared in reliable, published sources as defined in WP:RS. Whatever good information is in here can be accomadated just as well at a merged page. There is no need for all this drama about "you want to delete every D&D page!!!"; no, we want to merge the majority of D&D pages, trim excessive in-universe content, and create featured-article class pieces about their impact in the real world, which is the primary subject of Wikipedia after all. Eleland 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares about third-party sources? This is fiction. Notability in fiction is measured by the numbers of the audience, not third-party sources. The reason that fiction doesn't have many third-party sources is because it is copyrighted. Duh. Wizards of the Coast would sue if another company copied their work.--— Quin 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom asked why every monster in every game guide is not also notable. Look at WP:NOTE more closely. The guidelines for notability include more than just the hope for independent sources. While the argument that not satisfying one of those four criteria does not indicate a lack of notability, most monsters have no significant coverage in addition to lacking independent sources. Notable Dungeons and Dragons monsters, luckily, have both independent sources and significant coverage, most of the time. The ones that lack both, such as the Ssvaklor, also lack WP articles because they are not notable. Interestingly, Luke Skywalker lacks independent references. Have you nominated that article for deletion under your ridiculously strict construction of WP:NOTE? Unless you have been living under a rock for 30 years, I don't think you can argue that this character is "not notable."OcciMoron 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An oversight on that article, and I've let them know. I'm sure if I nominated it for deletion, it'd be taken care of. As for these articles, I have no such beliefs. Perhaps you should consider actually finding some sources rather than trying to find ways around notability? --Eyrian 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find the sources. You are the one trying to destroy Wikipedia, after all.--71.107.174.221 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, there's no reason to accuse a person of trying to destroy Wikipedia. It's best to assume good faith. Now that said, I do think the standards are mistaken here, and in many cases. Why? Because Notability wasn't built with the considerations of these circumstances in mind. It's a pity, but sometimes the rules are broken. That's why the spirit is more important than the rule. FrozenPurpleCube 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they broken? I find that they work excellently. --Eyrian 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to look more carefully at the situation here. Or AFD in general. There are a lot of folks who find notability a poor standard. I suppose you could dismiss folks as simply ignorant and needing to go into "rightthink" but I think that might have its own perils as well. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people disagree, but I don't see any good reasons why. Regardless, the place to fight that battle is not here. Try WP:VPP. --Eyrian 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And I haven't seen any good reasons to use that standard. Just arguments by default that this is the rule, so we follow it. Not persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources are clearly required for WP:NOTE. Yes, it is fiction. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, nor is it a collection of fictional in-universe information devoid of context, commentary, or critical analysis. Without 3rd party sources, how can we write a verifiable article, or determine a neutral point of view? Without 3rd party sources all we can do is repeat what's in the Monstrous Manual; anything else would be original reserach. I personally agree that "notability" is the wrong way to phrase it - the real issues are verifiability and NPOV, which require 3rd party sources to be achieved. Obviously, any fictional work which becomes popular will be covered by such sources. D&D has received ample coverage, for example. D&D elves have probably received enough coverage to create a good article. Obscure D&D monsters have not. Eleland 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you want to say. There's nothing NPOV troubling to me in "This is a Monster that appeared in Book X and is described as living in a given type of terrain, that looks like whatever it looks like" nor does it need third-party sources any more than I'd need third-party sources to confirm what is in a given episode of a television show. And I find context, commentary or critical analysis a secondary concern to accurately describing the fictional subject of an article. This isn't to say long, sprawling articles on plot are what I want, but rather that a good summary of the plot is of primary importance. And I'm not sure that the standards for fiction or notability really gave a good consideration to in-depth fictional universes. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the factual, not the fictional. --Eyrian 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Giving facts about fiction is still factual.--71.107.174.221 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, very clever. :) Zidel333 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime is the leader of the Autobots in the fictional universe of the Transformers. That's a fact. Harry Potter attends Hogwarts in the stories about him. That's also a fact. Luke Skywalker? A Jedi and the son of Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala. All facts within the story itself. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wonder why we are not also having this discussion about Luke Skywalker, but I add to that the comment that the article on Padme Amidala should be considerably pruned as it contains many references to the films in which she appears, and of course, only the fact that she is played by Natalie Portman is notable because it is the only citation on that article which comes from an "independent" source. The Three Musketeers should also be grouped with these articles under nom's suggestion, because they do not meet nom's standards for notability. Dumas would be surprised, no? In fact, the article on books should probably be deleted as every one of its citations is- a book! This is clearly a conspiracy by book publishers and authors, a small community, to lead you to believe that books have had some kind of impact on human history. Shall I point out further how absurd this delete justification is?OcciMoron 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No argument has been presented as to why these creatures are non-notable. It could be argued, of course, that anything related to D&D is non-notable; it would be fun to see nominator try. RandomCritic 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30 years of cutural impact is not insignifigant... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, that Coffee table book is...or at least, abominable. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but with no prejudices against recreation if/when independent source can be added. Also, since this wikipedia isn't a game-guide we need redesign the articles with the "how has this impacted the real world" as the primary guiding light for these articles. If the artice can't be writen from that context then it's game cruft. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) _{(side note: I love getting an edit conflict when the comment is "lol". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))}[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in these articles which would substantially matter to anybody playing the game itself. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, these articles are much more notable than that Me and the Pumpkin Queen article you created.…--71.107.174.221 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least that one has third-party sources. --Agamemnon2 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You'd do well to check out the history of that article. And no, they're not. Important? Maybe. But here on Wikipedia, it's notability that matters. --Eyrian 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Any article about D&D and AD&D adventures, games, books etc will refer to one or more of these monsters. If all these articles were to be deleted, than it is possible that each of these articles will have to indiviually carry some description of one or more of these monsters.KTo288 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Delete, make D&Dwiki All the creature pages listed here are non-notable in a general encyclopedia, but might do well on a different wiki. Some are creatures that predate D&D in fiction and are notable by themselves, but not as D&D creatures. Imagine adding a note "An angel is also a monster in D&D and other role playing games" to the page on angels. It would be weird. There are a few fictional creatures that started life as D&D monsters for which one could make an argument of notability, but none of them are on this list. Maybe the rust monster, creeping coins and displacer beast could make it, but that's not part of this discussion. If this discussion comes out "no consensus", I'd suggest nominating the least notable D&D monster on its own as an AfD so that we can have a test case, and then moving up the list in batches. And to those arguing that it's too much work to clean bad articles out of wikipedia, that's hopefully not true, or we're lost as a project. --Slashme 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with certain WikiProjects and inclusionists within them. WP:POKE went through the same crap with its articles, and there's still combat going on on Bulbasaur. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found it took quite a lot of effort to prune that Gundam cruft some time ago. And I think it continues to multiply. MER-C 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly correct to say that these entries are not suitable for a general encyclopedia... and if Wikipedia were a general encyclopedia that would be relevant. However, since Wikipedia combines the contents of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" we ought to be looking at that (actual) standard for inclusion. Is D&D notable? Obviously yes. Would a specialized D&D encyclopedia include these things? Yes. Ergo, they are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Which is why we are also creating articles on every species of animal in existence. You wouldn't find an article on the Naked-rumped Tomb Bat in any 'general encyclopedia'. You wouldn't even find one in most 'encyclopedias of mammals', but you'd find it in an 'encyclopedia of bats' and you find it in Wikipedia. Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is no less (indeed, far more) notable than Naked-rumped Tomb Bat and thus no less worthy of inclusion. --CBD 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it combines elements of them; either you can't read or you're cherry picking quotes to try and advance your position. 81.153.125.209 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, I can obviously read, so it must be that I am cherry picking quotes that advance my position. "Elements of". Ah, very important distinction. No doubt the 'element of' almanacs which Wikipedia incorporates is that it is 'published' only once a year! And the 'element of' specialized encyclopedias which Wikipedia incorporates is an 'in universe' perspective! Here all this time I was thinking it was the contents. That's it. Nuke the Naked-rumped Tomb Bat article. It'd never be found in a general encyclopedia. :] --CBD 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashme suggested that we nominate the least notable monster here after this closes if there's no deletion. That's the wrong way to go, as further rounds of the deletion game are just....non productive. I suggest instead trying to work with the project to establish a consensus as to inclusion/exclusion. There are indeed creatures that can merit articles, and as far as existing mythological creatures and D&D is concerned, it would help to establish a position on that as well. It might be desirable, for example, to have a summary article discussing the issue, as one of the influences of the game. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete. I bet there's someone out there that can make use of these pages, but it ain't us. This is an encyclopedia, not an in-universe guide to D&D. There is no evidence that these fictional characters have had any substantial impact on the real world whatsoever.

Very few, if any, of these articles could be considered an in-universe guide to D&D. That would be something entirely different in nature. (For that sort of thing, I'd suggest reading one of the D&D books with a section written in that form). But any of that could be addressed with a rewrite if it were the problem. As for substantial impact on the real world, that seems a bit of an arbitrary claim, since several of these creatures have been the subject of art, miniatures, magazine articles and even books in the real world. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Per the GFDL license, if articles are transwikied, they should not be deleted but be turned into redirects with the {{R from merge}} template on them.--ElminsterAumar 06:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This stuff reads like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and as such can never meet criteriaWikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Gavin Collins 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not these are kept, citing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is absurd given that they were created and published by a notable company as part of a notable RPG. Whether these individual articles are notable is open to question, but this argument smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. -Chunky Rice 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, if you can take something you've made up in school one day and get it published across the globe, get several movies made around it, hundreds (if not thousands) of different novels, as well as various art, miniatures, and who knows what else, then I'd say your work might merit an article on Wikipedia. Besides, it's not like anybody is arguing that the individually created creatures merit inclusion by default. I think most people would agree that the threshold is higher than that. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Default inclusion seems awfully close to what's being argued. Again, none of the creatures here are particularly important to D&D. Why should Digester be kept, but not Ssvaklor? --Eyrian 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is based on your approach to discussing this issue, which is instead of establishing a baseline of acceptance, jumped straight to the deletion roundtable. As I said originally, I think you'd have been better advised to discuss the issue in the project space. This might have served to focus the issue on developing a criteria for inclusion as opposed to engendering hard feelings that tend to arise from the "AFD" approach. It's unfortunate, but the method chosen stirred up the pot in such a way that may not fix things at all, but will instead leave everybody feeling upset. As for Digester versus Ssvaklor, I take no position on that question, I do not know that I would consider them any different but then again, maybe I would. I'd have to know more about them. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all Most of these seem like canonical D&D creatures. I might agree with deleting two or three in this list but a cluster nomination like this is not the way to go. The nominator should work with the D&D WikiProject to establish article inclusion criteria rather than randomly select some articles for deletion. --Polaron | Talk 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't know how much this helps with the notability issue, but User:Quinsareth was kind enough to find some third-party sources to add to Golem (Dungeons & Dragons), Angel (Dungeons & Dragons), Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons), and Grimlock (Dungeons & Dragons), which according to the editor were "a few easily-found, official and third-party sources simply by using Google." BOZ 06:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the DDO website (as added to Golem) a third party source. It's a licensed adaptation. --Agamemnon2 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mass deletion nominations like this one are nonsensical. Wikipedia has lots of articles about fictional creatures from specific works of fiction, including articles about Vulcans and Klingons from Star Trek. These articles are hardly different. Rray 11:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge, which means keep for now. I'm rather surprised- has no one yet linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters? It seems that the WikiProject knew that this was a problem, and are (slowly) working on a new scheme. Some D&D creatures are likely too irrelevant to merit anything even on a list, or perhaps only merit a line or two, but that distinction is for editors more familiar with the topic to decide. It seems stalled for now, but certainly some editors who are willing to debate the matter here might also be willing to push ahead with a new merging scheme that would leave only the D&D monsters meeting general notability with their own articles (dragons, beholders, etc.).

I'll add that somebody else brought up D&D classes. To put my time where my mouth is, I'll just add that despite not being overly familiar with the latest D&D stuff, I've been working on merging the less notable of those as well. Compare the old template's entries with the current Template:D&D character class (though the job is certainly not quite done yet!). SnowFire 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And what good would merging do? I agree with 71.107.178.64's comment, that "people could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures" and that "they don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page."--ElminsterAumar 06:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dungeons & Dragons is a very notable RPG. I don't see how elements relating to it would be non-notable. Salvatore22 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is not inherited. --Eyrian 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not an explanation, that's an assertion without supporting argument. FrozenPurpleCube 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument that notability is inherited is the assertion without supporting argument. Notability pertains to a particular topic, not its parent topic. If notability were inherited, the entire universe would be notable many ontological schemes. An individual topic needs to demonstrate its notability. That is right there in WP:NOTE. Where does it make the exception that an article doesn't if it's parent does?--Eyrian 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He's right there - there is no such thing as inherent notability or non-notabilty for the children of a particular article. Of course, a group nomination like this for a specific subset of the children of a subjetc seems to border on the asumption of inherent non-notability. Artw 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's how it goes. WP:NNOT is a failed proposal. Articles need to prove their notability, or be deleted. --Eyrian 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There we are in agreement. Are you changing your vote to relist so that can happen? Artw 03:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have had years come up with sources. The policies about notability and verifiability have always been there. I simply don't believe the sources exist in this case. That's why they got {{afd1}} and not {{[[Template:|]]}}. --Eyrian 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, notability is in this case nothing but a practice on Wikipedia. Is it definitive? Nope. In fact, it's explicitly stated that "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." . There's a reason for that. In any case, you may disagree with these creatures being notable because D&D is notable BUT the way to argue with that isn't going to be suited by saying "Notability isn't inherited" as if it were some sort of magic mantra. I'm afraid it isn't. Thus I continue to recommend that instead of simply reciting what's said elsewhere, you articulate a reasoning applicable to the specific situation. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my common sense tells me that random monsters from D&D don't deserve their own articles. And you've failed to provide any reason for an exception that doesn't fall apart on a cursory analysis. --Eyrian 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I don't think anybody here is going to say that "random monsters from D&D" merit their own articles. I think many people would accept a criteria that is more specific than that. Perhaps you'd care to start a discussion on the subject itself? FrozenPurpleCube 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite willing to do so, but I really ~~don't~~ think it would boil down to a restatement of notability. --Eyrian 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think might happen, it would still be a better way to cover the issue in a way other than AFD. Try some of the existing wikiprojects, or the village pump. FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake in my post. The correct meaning should now be clear. Notability is the bar that has been set, and it is the bar that always should be set. It's got very good reasons behind it, and exceptions should be made in individual cases, not general ones. --Eyrian 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. These creatures appear in many novels that are best-sellers and are read by millions of people. They are a strong part of both the plot and the background. Deleting them would deprive many people of their wish to learn more about these creatures. Each creature article also contains a list of references where these creatures are featured in, so that people know were to look to learn more about them.--ElminsterAumar 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly User:71.107.174.221. --Eyrian 06:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now that your "arguments" are failing, you are relying on ad hominem attacks? I am not User:71.107.174.221. True, this is a new account I have just created, but I already know a bit about editing Wikipedia, and D&D is a fairly well-known subject, to say the least. Excuse me for stumbling upon your bad-faithed deletion nomination.--ElminsterAumar 06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that ad-hominem? I'm not saying you're a bad person; just that you've already contributed here. How convenient that for every one of your first contributions, you just stumbled upon a page I've been working on...--Eyrian 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so I suppose you are not familiar with the Special:Contributions/Eyrian page?--ElminsterAumar 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultus Ferox is clearly less notable than these D&D creature articles. Much more people know about these creatures than that German band.--ElminsterAumar 06:24, 26 August 2007 (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.