Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (3rd nomination)

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg

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

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

The article fails WP:GNG, lacking significant non-primary sources. It seems the previous AfD keeps argued that appearing in other games counts, but that's in no way significant considering the many usages of monsters inspired by D&D over the decades. TTN (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know consensus can change but the arguments regarding the non-primary sources that resulted in two past Keep decisions appear to still apply, so I'm not sure why the third time around should be any different. — Hunter Kahn 14:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were mostly staunch inclusionists and involved D&D editors. As many like minded people advocating for deletion can result in an article that actually has potential being removed, many like minded people can argue for a horrible keep stance. There is no real validity whatsoever in their argument. TTN (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aslo, the previous AfD can hardly even be called a "consensus", as user 129.33.19.254 seems to have canvassed users who !voted "keep" in previous Dungeons & Dragons-related deletion discussions into that discussion, compromising the consensus decision-making process. Not a very active user (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources used in the prior AFD as claims of independent sources are just two game products published under the d20 System and the open gaming license, which allowed other publishers a license to use WotC owned concepts. They weren't an actual discussion about the creatures, or anything that would indicate real world notability, they were just in-universe usage of the creature in games. The only non-primary source I'm finding that isn't just a game book is the usual The Monsters Know What They're Doing which, as usual, is just a guide describing the creature as it exists in the game. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article currently cites two non-primary sources. The first one, "An interview with fantasy artist Erol Otus" is merely a trivial mention of ankhegs, as it mentions ankhegs only once, and the only thing it tells us about them is that they were designed by Erol Otus. It doesn't address the ankhegs directly and in detail, making it insufficient to establish the topic's notability. The other source, a Computer Gaming World article, is not enough to establish notability alone, as multiple sources are generally needed to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am starting to think we should do away with all articles specifically on D&D things. We can have a general article on the monsters without being either an exhaustive list or giving too much detail, and if the thing being in D&D is notable, we can include material on that on a more general article on the topic, but we should not have articles just on a monster in D&D.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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