Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons)
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 merge to Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. I have suggested a merge target; a more suitable one may be appropriate. Certainly from the wright of argument here, there is consensus that such an article is not sufficiently well grounded in policy to stand alone. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 Dungeons & Dragons article is entirely sourced to primary and affiliated sources (D&D game books and officially licensed publications, and books authored by D&D writers) and thus fails our notability guideline. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't feel so strongly that I'm going to suggest keeping this, but I wonder if having this quite in-universe article (basically a list) avoids having articles for each of the creatures included therein. Thoughts? Stalwart111 10:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment has merit, of course, but this is already a sub-list of creatures that goes too much in-depth, considering WP isn't supposed to cover all of the D&D trivia. Lists have merit and that's why we already have huge lists mentioning every single D&D monster that exist, and we frankly don't need this kind of sub-lists that go too much into the details of creatures. Lists only work with the highest common denominator for which we can more easily find external coverage, that's why I'm fine with with global monster lists per game/edition, but not merely per in-universe criteria (like "creature type").Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, fair enough. I suppose I'm torn between the fact that there are sources and the fact that the sources seem to all be in-universe. But I also think whoever created the article could just have easily created articles for each creature. They haven't, and this is better than that. But possibly not much better. I think I'll refrain from !voting for now and will wait to see what others have to contribute. Stalwart111 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this article was created in 2009 as a merge target for AfDed creature article. While I completely understand your reasoning, this shows, in my opinion, a gradual upward movement (from individual creature articles to creature type articles, to per edition lists) that corresponds to the strengthening of notability requirements and standards for fiction over the years. I just think it is time for another upwards movement, seeing this article has been tagged for notability and PRIMARY for almost a year, and that as of now it's more of an accumulation of plot summaries than a proper list, and it doesn't have more encyclopedic content that the individual non-notable articles it is made of. Your contribution made me realize I'm heading more for a merge to one of the lists at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters than outright deletion, so maybe I could scrap this AfD and propose a merge for all these creature type "pseudo lists" instead. What would you think about that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the deletion rationale is invalid, but that does seem like a sensible solution. It's here now, might as well let people talk about it. Tell you what, I'll kick the discussion off... Stalwart111 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this article was created in 2009 as a merge target for AfDed creature article. While I completely understand your reasoning, this shows, in my opinion, a gradual upward movement (from individual creature articles to creature type articles, to per edition lists) that corresponds to the strengthening of notability requirements and standards for fiction over the years. I just think it is time for another upwards movement, seeing this article has been tagged for notability and PRIMARY for almost a year, and that as of now it's more of an accumulation of plot summaries than a proper list, and it doesn't have more encyclopedic content that the individual non-notable articles it is made of. Your contribution made me realize I'm heading more for a merge to one of the lists at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters than outright deletion, so maybe I could scrap this AfD and propose a merge for all these creature type "pseudo lists" instead. What would you think about that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, fair enough. I suppose I'm torn between the fact that there are sources and the fact that the sources seem to all be in-universe. But I also think whoever created the article could just have easily created articles for each creature. They haven't, and this is better than that. But possibly not much better. I think I'll refrain from !voting for now and will wait to see what others have to contribute. Stalwart111 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment has merit, of course, but this is already a sub-list of creatures that goes too much in-depth, considering WP isn't supposed to cover all of the D&D trivia. Lists have merit and that's why we already have huge lists mentioning every single D&D monster that exist, and we frankly don't need this kind of sub-lists that go too much into the details of creatures. Lists only work with the highest common denominator for which we can more easily find external coverage, that's why I'm fine with with global monster lists per game/edition, but not merely per in-universe criteria (like "creature type").Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as appropriate to lists listed at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. List. Ha ha. Stalwart111 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Many of the individual plants were apparently merged here because they individually fail to satisfy WP:GNG. But the list also fails to satisfy the same criteria. Is there not one of these that can demonstrate notability? Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters and other related lists as appropriate, per Stalwart111. BOZ (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination statement is no longer true, which suggests that other sources likely also exist, meaning that WP:BEFORE was not followed sufficiently well. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The source just added to the article, Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies, was published in 2005 and authored by Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker, respectively Director of Roleplaying Game design and writer at Wizards of the Coast until 2011 ([1] "Bill Slavicsek [...] leads the creative effort for Wizards of the Coast. Richard Baker is a game developer and author of five Forgotten Realms novels."). Wizards of the Coast being the copyright-holder and official publisher of Dungeons & Dragons, the source, written when both authors were full-time WotC employees, cannot be seen as "independent of the subject" as is required by our notability guideline, and cannot grant notability to the topic. Besides, it only mentions the subject in passing and doesn't allow to build an encyclopedic article. I thus can't see how this could possibly suggest the existence of multiple secondary, unaffiliated and significant sources. Given that AfD comments must be based on policy and evidence and not on speculation, I urge you to rectify your comment, because my nominations is still perfectly valid, but I will rephrase it to cover your observation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, you insist on a level of independence that is simply not possible to meet for writing about a trademarked fictional element. Thankfully, the level of independence required by policy is quite a bit lower than what you would prefer. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The level of independence required by WP:GNG "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It doesn't set any kind of exception for fictional elements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- even if the "level of independence that is simply not possible to meet for writing about a trademarked fictional element." WAS a valid descriptor/exception - its not, there is no "if independent third parties do not exist than it is allowable to use works by closely related parties to establish notability" exception / ITICCDMPRIPR, this still fails the other vital portion of notability significant coverage. a two line passing mention is the poster child of "trivial coverage" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The level of independence required by WP:GNG "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It doesn't set any kind of exception for fictional elements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, you insist on a level of independence that is simply not possible to meet for writing about a trademarked fictional element. Thankfully, the level of independence required by policy is quite a bit lower than what you would prefer. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The source just added to the article, Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies, was published in 2005 and authored by Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker, respectively Director of Roleplaying Game design and writer at Wizards of the Coast until 2011 ([1] "Bill Slavicsek [...] leads the creative effort for Wizards of the Coast. Richard Baker is a game developer and author of five Forgotten Realms novels."). Wizards of the Coast being the copyright-holder and official publisher of Dungeons & Dragons, the source, written when both authors were full-time WotC employees, cannot be seen as "independent of the subject" as is required by our notability guideline, and cannot grant notability to the topic. Besides, it only mentions the subject in passing and doesn't allow to build an encyclopedic article. I thus can't see how this could possibly suggest the existence of multiple secondary, unaffiliated and significant sources. Given that AfD comments must be based on policy and evidence and not on speculation, I urge you to rectify your comment, because my nominations is still perfectly valid, but I will rephrase it to cover your observation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge if we must. What strikes me about this article is that the list is quite incomplete (c.f. Monster finder) and that there is a lot information missing about the entries that are there. There are many secondary sources out there, such as D&D Monster Finder, D&D Wiki and the d20 SRD; D&D Monster Finder has content under fair use and D&D Wiki has some community content transferred with permission of WoTC, but no commercial licensing as far as I can tell. So they seem independent of WoTC. While these aren't news organizations or academic publishers, I don't doubt the fact checking by passionate D&D enthusiasts is better than most news organizations. Although they may not fit the traditional WP mold of a RS, I'd be comfortable with considering them reliable, especially with primary sources available to do our own fact checking. If by consensus such list sources are not considered notable, creating individual articles for each notable monster type may be the way to go. A merge the information, per WP:PRESERVE, would not be my first choice, but would be acceptable. --Mark viking (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, places like the D&D Wiki are community-created and don't count as reliable sources. We need to find sources with editorial oversight. —Torchiest talkedits 22:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and use to merge individual pages into it, keeping reasonably sized descriptions. Lists like this are the way to go for material of this sort, and is the usual consensus method. in an article, the individual parts of it need not be notable. In fact, if they are, we should have individual articles on them in addition to the list, or instead of it. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem to find your policy-based reasoning for keeping the article. It was nominated because it fails WP:GNG, so where is the significant content from multiple independent sources required to keep it ? Individual parts need not be notable, but the article in itself needs to be, and "Plant creatures" is not. We already have List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (and other broad lists) to merge individual pages, and you fail to demonstrate the need for more in-detail/in-universe lists. Consensus, on the contrary, seems to limit the number of lists with too narrow/in-depth scope such as this one (see for example House Do'Urden, recently merged to List of Forgotten Realms characters...).Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. One of many D&D articles currently completely lacking in independent reliable sources; in this case I don't think there's any evidence that such sources exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:42 the basic requirement for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 30 May 2013 (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.