Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ankheg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline in that the subject has not received significant coverage (ie. more than trivial mentions) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, the article uses almost exclusively primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (publications from the official D&D publisher, when it's not the D&D books themselves), while the only two independent sources are literally trivial mentions, with the name of the creature only mentionned once, in one sentence, without any significant discussion or analysis related to it. Obviously this D&D creature has no notability (as Wikipedia defines it) and should be deleted, since no one came up with any reliable source, despite the article being tagged for a lack of secondary sources for two years now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: user 129.33.19.254 (talk) has started a canvassing campain to try to win this AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's some pretty serious bad faith. I contacted two users who found sources in the previous AFD (i.e., the ones Torchiest mentions below), in hopes that they might find more. That is hardly a canvassing campaign. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You contacted two users who voted "keep" in the previous AfD for this article. There is no bad faith on my part. On the contrary, my reaction is entirely logical, as you've already been warned for canvassing in a D&D-related AfD by another user two months ago, when you contacted 6 users who had previously !voted "keep" in several D&D-related AfDs and "neglected" to contact any of the "delete" !voters in the same AfDs. Considering how your actions were interpreted last time, you should have refrained to start asking people to take part in this AfD, or at least you should have tried to make it neutral and contact as much people likely to !vote "delete" here, as people likely to !vote "keep". But as I said, you contacted 2 users who voted keep in the previous AfD for this article, and it was only appropriate to warn you before you could do more damage, as you did 2 months ago.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You did assume bad faith when you assumed that I would contact more people than I already had. I did not contact these two users because they voted “Keep”, but because they provided sources at the last AFD, as I have already explained. There were numerous others who voted to Keep last time, but I did not contact anyone who did not provide sources – which includes everyone who voted to Delete. If you see here and here (in case you did not bother to read them), you’ll see that my intentions were clear, unless you think it was necessary for me to also say “and please help us find more sources again this time.” My actions in the previous case were wrong, as I now understand, but perfectly justified in this instance. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one who violated a policy two months ago, it is thus normal that your behavior is monitored and that when you start acting suspiciously you are warned. Your vague explanations that you contacted users "who provided source" doesn't matter, canvissing means contacting only people from one side and that's what you did. You could have contacted "delete" !voters just for the sake of being perfectly neutral, but you didn't. That you did not contact more "keep" people is only thanks to my warning. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe as you will - apparently you are more informed of my motivations than I am. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the IP editor were really canvassing, he would have contacted me, since I'm known to have a sympathetic interest in the D&D topic area. He didn't - as a check of my talk page's history will show. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Jclemens asked nicely and thought it would be a good idea, I decided to contact more participants from the previous AFD to avoid any suspicion of canvassing. I left a neutral notice on the talk pages of editors who had been active within the past six months, who argued to either keep or delete, and who have not already responded here. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments in the previous AfD. Specifically, the Paizo source and Into the Green look significant enough (and are independent of the subject) to satisfy WP:GNG. —Torchiest talkedits 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I explain it in the nomination, coverage must be "significant" and "not trivial". Clearly, coverage in Into the Green is entirely trivial as it only consists in 3 mentions of the creature in a paragraph which is not even dedicated to it, and the paragraph itself is only plot summary and doesn't include any form of commentary or analysis.
      As for the "Paizo source", Pathfinder is actually a game itself, and what you link to is only the official game rule written by Paizo, the game publisher. Thus it is a purely primary source, and your comment doesn't answer satisfyingly to the notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look more closely at the Into the Green source. It's not just three mentions. That link doesn't highlight the plural. The entire last half of the paragraph is specifically about the way the creature interacts with the plant. As for the Paizo source, it seems like it satisfies WP:GNG: it is significant, reliable, and independent of the subject, which was originally a creation of TSR, not Paizo. —Torchiest talkedits 19:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, if you have to rely on how many times a word occurs in a sources, it is a very bad sign, a sign that the source is not covering the subject in a significant way. There are only 2 occurences of "ankhegs" in the same paragraph, and "the way the creature interacts with the plant" is still plot summary devoid of any analytic content, thus making it very unlikely that the source could be used to included anything else that plot summary into the article.
          Second, the Paizo source doesn't satify the GNG, which specifically asks for secondary sources ("Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."). Pathfinder, since it is a game itself and not a publication about D&D or about the D&D creature, is a primary source and your link is from the publisher of Pathfinder, and it merely describes a gaming mechanism from this primary source, thus it does not contain any coverage on the D&D creature (since were talking about two different game and thus two different creatures) as it is only plot summary anyway. This source is not on-topic and doesn't allow the inclusion of any relevant information or secondary content (analysis on the subject itself, which is the D&D creature and not the Pathfinder creature) except "other media" kind of trivia. If this is the only "external" source you can find, clearly the topic is not notable because it .Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Torchiest, and this doesn't exhaust my comments on the subject - I may have more to say later. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "per Torchiest", are you then going to reply to the arguments that Torchiest failed to counter ? That the article is only using primary sources, that the others are merely trivial mentions and thus unsignificant coverage, or primary content unrelated to the topic ? Or will we juste have to make do with your minimalist "keep per..." because you like it without providing any valid answer to the many issues raised in the nomination ? Need I remind you that an AfD "is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments" and that "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements" ? The keep comment as of now are not supported at all and are deliberately ignoring important issues. Trying to turn this into a vote won't change the obvious conclusion: deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's really no need to be quite so vehement about things. Using phrases like "user 129.33.19.254 (talk) has started a canvassing campain to try to win this AfD" and "arguments that Torchiest failed to counter" is a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I haven't "failed to counter", I just haven't replied because I have nothing else to add right now. But, if you would prefer an explicit statement, then here it is: I understand the point you made about Pathfinder being a primary source. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of primary source, since, as I stated, Paizo didn't publish the original concept, but came up with something derivative. I may change my opinion about the notability of the article over the course of the next week. But flinging around accusations of canvassing, "deliberately ignoring important issues", and "trying to turn this into a vote" isn't productive. I'm perfectly willing to accept that my initial arguments could be wrong or misinformed, but there's no rush. I am simply waiting for input from other editors, rather than rehashing the points we've already gone over. As you said, the arguments will be judged on their strength; repeating them doesn't make them stronger. —Torchiest talkedits 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". I don't see how leading this discussion would be a "WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality", given that AfDs are not votes, the result won't depend on how many D&D fans can team up within one week, but how satisfyingly you can answer to the issues raised in the nomination. It is merely an opportunity to make your opinion prevail. And I'm not making accusations, the IP's behavior has been problematic during a past AfD and I'm making sure that it doesn't disrupt this one any further. As for Paizo, the way I see it is that it not D&D but Pathfinder. A proper secondary source makes analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source. Pathfinder doesn't make provide any analytic on the D&D monster, it is just a work of fiction using a name in its gaming mechanism, the link is just the game rules, the fiction itself and thus is primary content. Though it can be used to verify a statement in the article, as per WP:GNG, a primary source which is not about the topic itself cannot be satisfyingly used to establish notability, if it is only used for trivia and doesn't bring "meat" to the article. If the only thing that can be said about Ankheg is that it appears in another RPG, then I don't see how it could be notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as last time - has been around for 30+ years and in at least five incarnations of D&D. Has coverage in independent-of-TSR/WOTC material, though more would be good to push it firmly "in the black". I have not seen much commentary of D&D stuff on google books, thus a trip to a library would be needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Being aroung" for a long time and "being in five editions" of a primary source are not WP:GNG criteria. We need an important number of 2ndary sources having significant coverage about the topic, not just "coverage". Being mentionned in passing in one sentence of an interview with its creator and never appearing again in not "significant coverage", which means "more than a trivial mention". I agree with you that to be notable, there is a need for more secondary sources and commentary. Just one sentence from the creator is definitely too light.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The two sources may be independent of TSR and WotC, but they aren't independent of the game itself. The article isn't about a publisher, it's about something in a game system, and the two sources are written for the game system (not even about the game system, providing no third-party commentary). That makes them non-independent sources. - SudoGhost 15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again, per last time. Nothing has changed, really. It still meets notability guidelines with the sources I identified in the previous AfD. Actually, something HAS changed--there's no longer a clearly appropriate list to which it could be merged, based on an intervening AfD. Full disclosure: I was invited to this AfD by the IP at my talk page... but I watchlist fictional elements, and would have seen it anyways, even if someone had only been selectively inviting past AfD Participants. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per the arguments presented at the previous AFD and those presented here, and because the article is now generally better sourced. The sources are reliable and independent of the subject. The creature is clearly notable within the RPG industry, if multiple game designers specifically chose to include it in their versions of the D&D game. In case a Merge is preferred over a Keep, the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters has been restored after DRV so that is once again an option. BOZ (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are either not independent of the subject (most of the are Dragon magazine, official D&D mag', or the game books themselves), or don't have significant coverage but only trivial mentions like one mention in a single sentence or only plot summary without any analytic comment. Being "notable within the RPG industry" doesn't mean anything, this is WP and not the RPG industry, the notability critiera are significant coverage from independent secondary sources, not the name being used in other RPGs. Notabilty on WP means notability in the world at large, among critics, and not only in other primary sources. And I remind you that WP:GNG requires secondary sources making "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", not primary sources. The fact that the only content available in the article is not about the article topic but about other homonymous topics (monster with same name in other games) is also a violation of the GNG in that notability requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail". If it's about other creatures bearing the same name in other media, then it's not covering the subject "directly". If everything the article has to offer is an "other media" kind of trivia, then it's clearly not notable. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is in better shape now than it was when it was kept in the previous AfD so I still say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. This article does not seem like it has that much encyclopedic content to warrant its own article, but Torchiest's description of Into the green does seem to be significant, despite accusations to the contrary. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment regarding the use of Paizo as a source for D&D creatures. I disagree with the notion that Paizo products should not be considered a source for D&D creatures; that's a bit like saying that no post Romero movie about Zombies should be considered to be about Zombies. That being said, I don't think a PFSRD entry (which is the citation here) should be considered an independent source since it is fundamentally licensed text copied from the Wizards source. Now if you have something created fresh by Paizo, like a chapter in one of their Monstrous Ecologies books, that's another matter. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's saying that no post Romero movie about Zombies should be considered to be about Romero's Zombies. You do not source an article about Night of the living dead exclusively with sources on 28 Days Later. Is Pathfinder a D&D game or an original ? It's original. Is the source providing analytic comment about the D&D creature ? No, it provides plot summary for its own game. As for Into the green, I'd have considered it significant had it made any analytic comments about a creature (whether an opinion or comments about its creation). As it is, it's just plot summary that happens to name-drop the creature and this has already been noted in the previous AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't Ankheg (Dungeons & Dragons). It's Ankheg. This is analogous to the Zombie (fictional); Romero may have created the image of the creature, but now it has wider recognition and usage. So it is in the case with the Ankheg, which was created as a D&D creature, but now appears in other role-playing games and video games. As for Into the Green, I've already stated that Torchiest's description makes it sound like more than the mere name dropping you assert; unless you have something more to add, that will remain my position. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why then does the lead of the article states that "An ankheg ( /ˈæŋkɛɡ/ ANG-keg),[1] also spelled anhkheg,[2] is a type of fictional monster in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game". And why then the mention of Pathfinder is in a section named "In other media" ? As an experienced user, I thought you knew that article titles don't have precisions in parentheses unless in case of homonymy, if an article doesn't have "(D&D)" in its title, then it doesn't mean it is not about D&D. Buty I'm glad you admit that the Pathfinder source is thus a primary source not about D&D and not on topic. As for Into the green it is only plot summary and doesn't contain any opinion from the author (whether the creature as good/bad design, whether it is a good/bad creature, how it was created, etc). If that's the only secondary source you can find on the topic, then it fails WP:GNG. Where are the "multiple sources" expected for a notable topic ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the quoted statement: I see your point there. The solution is to edit the context of the lede to take into account the broader context, not AfD. I won't be entertaining your comments on Into the Green any longer; I actually found a copy of it and will make my own determination as to whether it's significant, but your characterizations sound as if you are trying to find any excuse to dismiss it. As for multiple references, I see Computer Gaming World and Poisoner's Handbook in the current list of references, so let's not pretend there aren't multiple independent references.-Sangrolu (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it only reinforces the official rules of Pathfinder as a primary source, and makes the article even less GNG-compliant. As for Into the Green you can read it on Google Books, I've read the page the article refers to, and I can only confirm it doesn't contain any significant comment but only reads as a plot summary. The same for Computer Gaming World, which I read, merely a trivial mention, a single name-drop (it literally only appears once, and is not even discussed in the sentence). I am not trying to find "excuses" to dismiss it, I'm just saying what I read, there isn't any significant comment in these sources. But you are sounding to much like you're trying to find excuses to violate the GNG, which, I remind you again, doesn't merely ask for "independent references", but "significant coverage, more than a trivial mention, in independent sources".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My review of Into the Green is still outstanding, so I'll hold off on that. But if the Poisoner's Handbook and Computer Gaming World references are trivial, then the notion that there are not sufficient independent sources to justify this article is credible, and more references may need to be found. I'm not invested in doing so myself, so I am tending towards changing my position to delete at this moment, but there are probably more references out there is someone is interested in saving it.-Sangrolu (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The secondary sources are marginal, but marginality is fine per WP:NOTPAPER. Notability need not be a high bar, and its best employment is in preventing the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional ends, which this article presents no danger of. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOTPAPER "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" and doesn't say anything about "marginal sources", on the contrary. Also, it states that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below". The content section leads us to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which also sends us to Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is a high bar, and its best employment is not restricted to advertisment. I'm glad you admit that the coverage in secondary sources is not enough, but troubled that your only argument to keep this article is to ignore WP:Notability. Articles should be made rule-compliant, not the other way around.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy and so is not a firm rule. Our actual policy is that such guidelines are not laws and that they just document our customary practise. Our customary practise is the aggregate of the community's editing and, in this case, it seems clear that it you that are out of step as hardly anyone agrees with you. Warden (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're tackling an interesting issue. I'd like to actually see what neutral contributors would say on this article, and not only D&D fans and known inclusionists...The actual participation doesn't allow you to talk about "anyone" yet, as for now it's just pov-pushing going against the actual consensus represented by GNG, from a fringe group far from representing the community at large. I'd also like to remind you that AfDs are not head count, and that shouting the loudest doesn't make you right.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shouting the loudest doesn't make you right"? That's an interesting observation... I'd wager that you've done more talking in this discussion than all the other participants combined. It seems to be that the "D&D fans and known inclusionists", which you seem to have a real problem with, are the only ones who have been interested in reponding so far. If that truly were an injustice, I'd expect more of an outcry from the community to defend your point of view, but so far I'm not seeing it. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I've done more talking because my arguments make more sense and have more strength than just people repeating fallacies and misinterpreting policies ? It's difficult to keep up with a debate if your position doesn't make sense and if you have to rely on head count and WP:IAR to make it prevail. I'm only making this comment because Warden boasted of having consensus on this issue, but I can only notice that all the "Delete" !voters from the last nomination (who have been notified by an IP) have not been active for months, so of course inclusionists were really lucky with the timing but it only undermines the value of your "consensus", as you're forced to rely on who's there and who's not in a given time frame. I haven't seen one contributor here who did not take part to the previous AfD (because they have all been contacted) so I certainly can't see any outcry against my nomination either. Obviously, as nominator I can't canvass for "delete" people, but if you are not afraid of testing the strength of your arguments, then go on and invite people not known for their sympathies for D&D, and we'll see how this turns out.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a modest entry, I see no reason for it to have its own article. If you're arguing that Ankheg is a spin-out of Erol Otus, then clearly, at 4kb, the original article is not excessively long (actually closer to a stub) and the split not justified in any way, any relevant information about Otus's works can be reinserted back into his own article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite normal for an encyclopedic entry to be short and succinct - "enough is as good as a feast". The guidance of WP:SIZE is that articles should not be too large and creating bloated compendia is therefore unwise. The current structure seems best for our readership as it satisfies the KISS principle. Warden (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an entry is too short and succint to stand on its own, just like Ankheg with no secondary sources, there's no problem reintegrating it in the original article, the result certainly won't be "too large and bloated" as the article will only be 10kb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sangrolu (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I believe that Pathfinder is a secondary source (as it is not owned by Wizards of the Coast and is not a D&D licensed product). Pathfinder RPG may be a 'game', but the fact that a game is based on another game is a secondary reference to that game and makes the first game kind-of 'famous' enough to be notable. Also the monster is notable enough to have over 54,000 hits on Google (including over 10,000 images). That is far too many hits to be a minor thing. However, I'm sure that Folken de Fanel will take the opportunity to make another straw-man attack on my logic and attempt to make me out to be a D&D loving idiot, as he has shown that sort of bad-faith towards me before. Big Mac (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asecondary source makes "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", I don't see that kind of commentary in Pathfinder, which is its own game and is thus not about D&D, as you said. The article subject being the D&D creature, Pathfinder is a primary source not even on-topic. Being referenced in other works is not a proof of notability but a trivia, neither are google-hits. Notability on WP is defined by WP:GNG as "significant coverage in secondary sources", which is not the case here. See yourself as a "D&D idiot" if that's what you want, but one day you wil have to understand that AfD comments must be based on existing policies and not on demonstration of D&D enthusiasm. Google-hits is not a valid argument. Even Sangrolu has admitted that Pathfinder is a primary source. There is absolutely no way to defend this article, except D&D fans teaming up to push a POV against the established policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason the article has to be solely about the D&D monster. It would be easy enough to change the lead to say something like "An ankheg... is a type of fictional monster originally designed for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game." —Torchiest talkedits 12:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't solve the notability problem. Making this article about Ankheg in general would only reinforce Pathfinder as a primary source. And would require you to find secondary sources on Pathfinder.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not such a bad idea, Torchiest. Paizo's adaption of the ankheg is probably worth including to show how the WotC's production of the SRD caused this and other SRD creatures to evolve in other directions. There may even be other companies, during the height of the 3e-era that have used this iconic monster in their d20 System products. In a way, the way this monster was used, is probably as useful (if not more useful) to someone trying to get a feel of this part of D&D than an article that focuses on the various editions of D&D, as that is just the stats. Not sure why mentioning a secondary source converts it into a primary source, Folken de Fanel. If there was a controversial biography about a famous person, I would expect that to get a section in the article about that person, but would still expect that to be considered a secondary source, as it is not authorised by the person it is about. In the case of Paizo, what we have is a long process of public consultation on the 3rd Edition SRD, where some elements of that document ended up being put into the PRD without change and other elements got altered. A comparison between the PRD and SRD versions of this monster would show if Paizo altered it much, but there might be threads on the Paizo forums that mentions the review of the structure of the ankheg. As for secondary sources of Pathfinder, that is probably easier than finding secondary sources of core D&D as we have PathfinderWiki's article on the ankheg with its coverage of the creature's impact on the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and very reliable citations on the sources. You keep referring to D&D as a "game" and comparing it to a computer game (in Wikipedia's policies) but really it isn't quite like a computer game. D&D is more of a "game engine" as it provides not the actual game, but a structure where a games master and players visualise a fictional world and take part in an interactive story within that world. I actually think that the fictional world is an important part of D&D. It is either going to be homebrew (which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and not notable) or it is going to be one of many commercial campaign settings. The PathfinderWiki article shows how ankheg's interact with Golorian (the Paizo campaign setting) and I think this article could be improved if someone, like WP:D&D was to search for references to ankhegs in various D&D campaign settings. This is the sort of improvement I'd love to see done here. Big Mac (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is about the monster as it exists in Pathfinder, then Pathfinder source materials are a primary source for the topic. That much FdF is entirely correct about. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only add 2 things: Pathfinder on the D&D monster doesn't provide any "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", so it cannot act as valid source for establishing notability. And source have to be reliable, which means that a D&D fan-wiki is not acceptable per WP:USERGENERATED.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the Paizo source currently in the article is not an independent source, as it is basically licensed material originally written by WotC staff. I don't agree that any Paizo material is not an independent source for D&D material. The reason we have independent reliable sources is to prevent vanity press and self promotion from being regarded as sources. We should not be trying to mince the meaning of reliable source here (see WP:Wikilawyering, esp point 3 and "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.").-Sangrolu (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG makes a point of stressing the importance of the nature of the content as well as its origin. Independence yes, but as for the purpose of notability, Independence goes with Significance (which means the use of analytic content, as the GNG makes a point of mentionning WP:SECONDARY), and reminding that to people who tend to discard Significance in AfD debates cannot be assimilated to wikilawyering. Besides these clarification, I fully agree with what you said, any analystic content by Paizo on D&D can be a valid source for asserting notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - A lot of the keep votes are saying there are independent sources in the article. Where are these independent sources? With the exception of this interview (which has no significant coverage), all of the references appear to be primary sources. The "into the green" reference is not independent of the article's subject any more than D&D's monster manual would be, and the same is the case for Paizo (the former Dragon magazine publisher): both use WotC's Open Game License to publish their version of the creature. These aren't independent third-party reliable sources, these are suppliment books for D&D using the OGL. - SudoGhost 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"in-universe" =/= "primary" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which has nothing to do with it. Nobody said anything about "in universe", these sources are not impartial third-party sources describing the article's subject, they are suppliments selling their version of the exact same thing. That isn't an independant source. - SudoGhost 21:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this article is about a creature in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game. The two sources (into the green and Pathfinder) are suppliments for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game using the OGL. Concerning the independence of the sources, they are no different than the Monster Manual in this regard, which is to say that these two sources are not independent of the article's subject. A suppliment book for the Dungeons & Dragons game (be it the Monster Manual or a non-WotC publisher) is not independent of the subject of the Dungeons & Dragons game]. - SudoGhost 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good catch, Sudo. So all the "keep" recommendations are based on an erroneous evaluation of the sources. And as a last nail in the coffin, here's what's written on the backcover of Into the Green (the same disclaimer appears in Pale Designs: A Poisoner's Handbook, btw):
"Into the Green is designed as a guidebook for both players and DM alike, providing the resources needed to flesh out a wilderness campaign [...] Into the Green requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons Player Handbook®, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast®."
So all the "keep" recommendations are based on an erroneous evaluation of the sources. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're just based on a different evaluation of the independence of the sources. Wizards is not TSR, and pretending that they're identical is not correct. Wizards and TSR both made money from Ankheg in some small way, indeed, but Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is not a WotC game, but one using licensed content. This supports notability in much the same way that movie tie-ins being sold at McDonalds does: someone else is licensing an original work to make money off of it. Secondary, semi-independent, yet still connected. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The evaluation may be different, but the result is the same, there's obviously no independence from WotC and TSR. I won't comment on your ridiculous "in some small way" statement (you know by now that this article is doomed and you're writing this just for fun). As for Pathfinder, it's a D&D "spin-off" (straight from the article) by Paizo Publishing (publisher of two official D&D magazines) and using modified D&D rules under licence from Wizards of the Coast. There no question of even a "semi-independence", Pathfinder is completely dependent on and affiliated to the subject. You might nitpick as you want, but as far as WP:GNG is concerned, nothing will change, and notability is thus not supported in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's subject is not "WotC's Ankheg", it's Ankheg in D&D. Pathfinder is D&D, it's simply a modification of the rules (as per their own description). If the Monster Manual is not independent for this article, then there's no way these two sources are either, having a different publisher for a slight variation of the same exact content does not somehow make it an independent source, they have the exact same interest and connection with the subject as WotC, and because of this aren't independent of the subject. These are primary sources. Also, addressing the McDonalds example that would not be a independent reliable source, McDonalds would not be said to address the subject from a disinterested perspective, and could not be used to establish notability. - SudoGhost 01:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WotC is TSR for all intents and purposes, as they acquired the company. Paizo, on the other hand, is not TSR, and claims about them being the former Dragon magazine publisher are irrelevant; it would be possible to find current and former relationships between a myriad of publishers that are credibly used as independent sources throughout Wikipedia. That said (and to repeat myself), I don't believe that particular Paizo reference noted in the article is independent, as it is mostly just edited OGL. I differ with the notion that any OGL gaming supplement is automatically not secondary; they can certainly make evaluative claims about the subject. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paizo's commercial interests in D&D are certainly relevant in regards with their "affiliation of the subject or its creator", given that key people at Paizo who were former editors of these D&D mags are now among the lead creative team of Pathfinder. Such close and direct ties cannot be ignored. The main claims here are that if Paizo mentions Ankheg in one of its game, then it means notability, but if Ankheg made its first appearance in a D&D magazine which belonged to Paizo for a while, then the notability claimed is non-existent as Paizo is likely trying to cater to the D&D audience for profit and certainly doesn't mention Ankheg out of pure encyclopedical and analytical interest. OGL gaming supplement could make evaluative claims, but I don't see that in Into the Green (as the Ankheg coverage is merely part of supplementary material for D&D campain), and it doesn't make the book any less dependent on D&D official handbooks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankheg_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068823923"