Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rust monster

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 redirect to Onsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Tone 09:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rust monster

[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)

A notorious creature within D&D, but fails WP:GNG when it comes to any kind of realworld significance. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and largely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Realworld significance" has no bearing on notability. Both the unicorn and the dragon have no "realworld significance" but are considered notable. For Rustie here, the three RS's Witwer, Ewalt and Bricken are enough to establish notability for this friendly little critter. Guinness323 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While not really relevant to the topic, I just want to point out that Unicorns and Dragons certainly have real-world significance. Whether as major elements used in Heraldry, to being used as national symbols to being important parts of major religions. All of this and more, I would say, is actual real world significance for these fictional beasts. Rorshacma (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Ewalt is very definition of mention in passing, Bricken is trivia/fancruft, and Witwer, well, appears to be in passing (through I don't have access to the source, but anyway, the ref doesn't even specify page numbers). I'd be rather surprised if anyone discussed this topic in depth outside fancruft-like coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons - I have argued elsewhere that the Arts & Arcana book is not an independent source for establishing notability for Dungeons and Dragons related topics as, despite it being published by Ten Speed Press rather than Wizards, it is an officially licensed and branded product, and Wizards lists it on the D&D site as an official product. While others may disagree, I have not been convinced otherwise. That leaves one potentially decent source in Of Dice and Men, and a bunch of short entries in fluff "Top Ten" lists that really do not denote notability (the one by Bricken specifically mentioned above is literally just a straight description of the creature in-game and nothing more). Further searches just bring up the usual array of primary sources, non-reliable sources, and game guides. I do agree that, as an originally created monster with some small amounts of coverage, it should be covered on the main topic of D&D monsters, and taking a look there shows that it is already mentioned there. Redirecting there would make sense, and the history would be preserved if any merging is deemed necessary. Rorshacma (talk)

Comment And I will gladly point out (again) that Witwer et al sought the license from Wizards in order to be able to freely use any and all artwork, artists' sketches, etc. as they show the evolution of artwork in the world of Dungeons & Dragons from high school amateur swipes of comics to professional oil paintings. Independent publisher, copyright is owned by Witwer et al = independent source. I would also point out that the authors are somewhat less than flattering to TSR and Wizards in several instances, hardly the actions of an in-house author. Of course license holder Wizards is going to market it as an "official" product, who would look a gift horse like this in the mouth? Coverage of Rustie in Witwer et el shows the entire development and evolution from a strange Japanese plastic model owned by Gygax through to its present form. I'll have the page numbers posted in a couple of days. Guinness323 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation and reason as to why it became an officially licensed product is really irrelevant to whether or not it is an officially licensed product, which it is. And to me, official D&D product = not independent. Again, I acknowledged in my comment that there is disagreement on the matter until some sort of consensus among users is established regarding it, so you are free to argue otherwise here. I just disagree with your assessment. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two sources by Bricken are not overly long, and the do contain descriptions of the monster - though that is worded very differently than it would be in a gaming product. They also contain an evaluation that and why it is especially fearsome to characters and memorable to player's - not because of the game-internal logic of power. And why the rust monster is ranked special. So it is not "literally just a straight description of the creature in-game and nothing more". Daranios (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It describes what a Rust Monster looks like, its behavior, its attacks, and the fact that it destroys metal objects, including magical items. That is a description of the monster as it exists in-game. Unless you are saying that "Its super-dangerous" counts as an evaluation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Its super-dangerous" is indeed already evalution, because the primary sources say that is exactly not very dangerous. Then: The rust monster is an original D&D invention; is among the 10 most memorable and 12 most obnoxious monsters (according to Bricken), "will never be forgotten, especially by the role-players that fought them"; it so fearsome to characters and players "Not because they're so powerful, mind you, but because they're really annoying." None of that is in-game. Daranios (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage (see also comment above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending potential improvement; the title can be redirected to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons in the interim. BD2412 T 04:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are several secondary sources, which, in contrast to things brought forth above, go beyond descriptions and listing, but do some evaluation of the significance of the rust monster for players, and what that strange creature says about the game. And its important enough to appear beyond D&D and beyond role-playing games. If this is not considered enough for a separate article, merge to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. That article needs more secondary sources, so merging will improve Wikipedia a tiny bit, while deletion does not. And we are here to improve Wikipedia, are we not? Daranios (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The primary sources used are cheap listicles that hold little weight. TTN (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite factual. Some of the secondary sources present in the article are "listicles", some are not. Daranios (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, the secondary sources given in the article are unfortunately either in-universe or in-passing mentions. The creature is already mentioned in the main Monsters page, which is therefore a natural redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page 66 of Witwer et al is a full-page breakdown of how the artwork for the rust monster, the owl bear and the bulette was developed from plastic dime-store monsters to humble sketches to professional illustrations, and how those humble origins helped Gary Gygax to develop three of the first truly original D&D monsters and their abilities. Not an in-universe reference, not a passing mention. Guinness323 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that the coverage in Witwer et al is in-depth, what is disputed is whether it is an independent source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there are arguments for and against it being an independent source. As long as there is no agreement if it is one or the other, affecting the status of the article with regard to notability: What would be the significant benefit for Wikipedia that would merit a deletion even in case of doubt? Daranios (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it because of dispute over the independence of the source would create the presumption that the source is independent, a presumption that would be counter to the rough consensus that has risen up around that source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where and how has this "rough consensus" been established? As I am of the opposing opinion, I am naturally doubtful. As long as there is no clear consensus, I am still wondering, what benefit does a user of Wikipedia have from the deletion of this article? Daranios (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The “rough consensus” I was referring to is the fact that articles sourced primarily to the reference in question are not getting kept, so clearly there is rough consensus that it does not constitute a source that helps to pass GNG. The keeping of material that is considered to fail notability guidelines is harmful to Wikipedia, and by extension Wikipedia users. I feel this discussion has become irrelevant to the AfD that is being discussed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:07, 21 March 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.