Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons)

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. JGHowes ^talk 02:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Of the two sources in the lead, the DnD magazine is a primary source and the Forbes article is just a fluff sentence that fails to provide significant coverage. Outside of that, coverage seems primary and trivial. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a notable game. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cupper52: The character Tiamat is what is being proposed for deletion, not the game Dungeons & Dragons. The status of the game's notability is irrelevant to the character. TTN (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep The coverage in Dragons: The Myths, Legends, and Lore is non-trivial (I can only see the first page, but even that little is quite good). There are plenty of reliable reviews of a book about Tiamat [1], [2], [3]. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a description with no particular commentary. On Google Books, you can see the entirety of the context. There is absolutely nothing there that can be described as original commentary aside from the obvious reference to having a mythological origin. The rest is just a literal plot description, which is why it is not used for anything in the article. It's literally just used to cite primary information. If it can be replaced with a primary source and have no context lost, it's not significant coverage. The Rise of Tiamat has its own article, so it's not relevant. If you want to merge the character there, then I'll gladly withdraw this so a discussion can be opened on how to best incorporate the material. TTN (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the whole thing on Google books for whatever reason. But yes, it's a summary of the character in a third-party source. That's exactly what we should be looking for. There are clearly tons and tons and tons of primary source material (certainly dozens of books and articles). But we are looking to establish notability. And yeah, if a book about person (or fictional character) X gets reviews that certainly counts toward the notability of the book, but also of its subject. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to provide original commentary which can then be used as material in the article. The simple existence of a description itself is not useful, else the dozens and dozens of cashgrab comic book character encyclopedias would be sufficient to prove notability for all but the most trivial of characters. If all you can do attach the reference to primary material, you've failed WP:NOTPLOT. The book sources mention nothing pertinent about the character, so they have no place in the article on the character. TTN (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you call them "cash grab" doesn't make them less of an encyclopedia. Summary of a fictional life still counts toward notability. NOTPLOT has nothing to do with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source fails to provide a single original thought. It is just a summarization of existing character traits. It is indistinguishable from a primary source in that regard. We judge the inclusion of sources on their relevance to the article. If the source provides nothing useful and can be replaced by a primary source without losing contect, that means it adds nothing of relevance to the article and that the article fails NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above and below showing it meets the WP:GNG, or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above remarks. Notable. Timmccloud (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is a little over-larded with in-universe refs which makes it hard to see at a glance, but there are indeed sufficient non-universe refs here to demonstrate notability. Ford MF (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior remarks, and, as I've said in many prior AfDs, be very cautious about the notability of subcultural topics for subcultures you are not in. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a specific reception section (which includes the books Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy & The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, a few list articles, and specifics on her portrayal in Rise of Tiamat) & reorganized some sections. The fictional description section is in need of a trim (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). There are 2 additional books I think might be useful based on their Google book snips but without a larger preview, I'm not 100%: Mythical and Fabulous Creatures: A Source Book and Research Guide (Malcolm South, Greenwood Press, 1987) & Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy (Crawford Kilian, Self-Counsel Press, 1998). If you have access to these books (or access to a particularly speedy interlibrary loan system), please let me know if they're useful sources. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. While there are some really bad votes here (WP:NOTAVOTE, also WP:KEEPPER and WP:ITSNOTABLE) I wan to commend User:Sariel Xilo for adding a large reception section. "Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy" is a reliable source, although Tiamat only gets a two-sentence long treatment (but it's a serious analysis, as much as two sentences can provide one).The treatment in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters is similar (three sentences if we want to be gracious, but it is mostly descriptive, just saying she appears in Dnd). The other sources are low quality plot summaries / gaming lists / mentions in passing, generally considered either unreliable or insufficient for establishing notability. As such, I concur with TTN that tnis page is 99% fancruft of little encyclopedic value, but I'd support merging parts of the reception into some relevant page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the existing secondary sources. With the addition of a non-plot reception section that tells us how and why Tiamat holds a special place within D&D, Sariel Xilo has demonstrated that the topic can fulfill both WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT (even though currently there is still an imbalance towards plot summary information). Daranios (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy and the Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. There's more work to do but I think it passes bare notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strong depth of independent, reliable coverage, in particular, in the reception section of the article Spiderone 18:47, 18 January 2021 (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.