Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (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 No Consensus to delete. A merge can be pursued editorially on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

I believe that this is an non-notable aspect of an notable game. Perhaps we can cut down the content and place it in another article and delete this. There were at least two times in this article's history where it was tagged for notability. Marlith ^T/C 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom, though relevant information could have simply been salvaged and the empty page then housekeeping speedied. User:Dorftrottel 05:14, January 22, 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and I have restored the notability tagging. This is unsourced and likely original research. Delete as non-notable after plenty of attempts to get it cleaned-up. --Jack Merridew 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When 100's of articles are tagged in a few months (and more than 100 in the last 2 weeks), its pretty hard to keep up! Hobit (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I know, which of these are you claiming this article is: 1. Instruction manual. 2. Travel guide. 3. Internet guide. 4. Textbooks and annotated text? If it's #1 what instructions is it giving? Hobit (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what a game guide looks like then try Ruy lopez. That gets a pass because it's about chess rather than D&D. That's just intellectual snobbery mixed with a witch-hunt. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did some looking around. This article can be improved, though I at least won't get to it until Saturday. darn job. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The published game materials should count as references; and as such, some brief mention of this variety of dinosaur could profitably be added to cultural depictions of dinosaurs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge and Redirect to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Animal. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the creature type one BOZ mentioned. There's no way to improve this article. No matter what you do, it'll still be a short stubby thing about how you can kill dinosaurs when you play a game of D&D. If someone specifically comes looking for it, with the disambiguation and everything, sure, leave this as a redirect for those people. Howa0082 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per BOZ. A little of this information, re-written in a more formal tone, and referenced, will improve the Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) article IMO. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect not a large enough creature sub-type in D&D to warrant it's own article but some of this one can be salvaged and mentioned in the main D&D creatures article - Dumelow (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've got the following sources. (which I will add later)

Goodman Games: Broncosaurus Rex. A d20 campaign setting set in an alternate future with civil war timeline divergence and dinosaurs on a frontier wild west type planet. Based off D&D with new classes and a bunch of dinosaurs.
Goodman Games: Dinosaurs that Never Were. A sourcebook of new dinosaurs for Broncosaurous Rex.

Note the above two are d20 references, not D&D references per se, but as a close relative, probably belong.

Goodman Games: Complete Guide to Tyrannosaurus Rex. A sourcebook on T-Rex's in D&D including growing huge and becoming psionically active.
Goodman Games: Complete Guide to Velociraptors. A sourcebook on Velociraptors in D&D. Including playing them as PCs without fully opposable thumbs and a shaman type class for them.
TSR: Module The Bane of Llywelyn Major opponents in this adventure are dinosaur riding amazons (see cover on link)
WoTC: Eberron Campaign setting
TSR: Monster Manual 1st through 3rd editions.

There are many more, but I think that's a good start. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, all of the above are books. There are also likely to be a dozen or more magazine articles on this. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several throughout Dragon's history, FWIW. Plus Dinosaurs featured heavily in a number of Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc modules and sourcebooks. BOZ (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Forbidden Plateau - A module within the Planes of Conflict Box set features dinosaurs quite heavily. The namesake location of the adventure was also linked to the divine domain of Ubtao from FR, who was himself heavily associated with dinosaurs.

Comment The content of these books will yield only non-notable detail for addition to the article IMO. I just don't think this subject warrants an article by itself. My vote remains Merge per BOZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect That's my vote for the moment. However I might be willing to change it to keep depending on the level of changes anyone feels capable of making to it content and/or sources.Shemeska (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the revisions made to the article, I'm satisfied changing my vote to Keep.Shemeska (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Every version of the D&D game had versions of dinosaurs, but I don't think that is a notable point to them. Slavlin (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just did a re-write of the article. It's not as good as I'd like, but I've spent all the time I can on it. If you get a chance, please take a look at it. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty good. Marlith ^T/C 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are welcome to withdraw the AfD :-) Hobit (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally now I am leaning to merge and redirect. Marlith ^T/C 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry Hobit, I don't think we should be keeping this. My issue is thus; what's the likelihood that someone would come to Wikipedia specifically for information about dinosaurs in D&D? I think it very unlikely (if they don't want unit data/stats, which we don't do), and thus see no real need in keeping this. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason to delete, and I think it a little silly to assume that an article several people have worked on would be an article that no one wants to read. Personally, I think the subject of where and how dinosaurs have been used in the 30-year, thousand book history of D&D to be interesting, without unit stats, whatever the hell those are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Although this article has got secondary sources, it has none that demonstrate the notability of a single dinosaur in the Dungeons & Dragons canon. As the article itself says, "Some of the dinosaurs used in D&D...are real ones which used to exist on earth". No wonder, as real dinosaurs have notability and the argument that D&D ones have inherited this notability is unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dinosaurs aren't a notable creature in dnd, although they do have some impact on certian settings such as Eberron this could easily be covered in other articles. I don't feel they are a significant enough monster to warrant thier own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookakitty (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand it, if something meets the requirements of WP:N it is notable. I think thats been done here. Votes after the revision seem like variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. I mean two whole books have been written on the topic, a large number of magazine articles, and (per the article) the topic has been a significant part of D&D since nearly the beginning and continue into this century. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not clear that enough of the sources are independent of the topic to pass WP:N. Most of the refs are TSR/WotC, and the WWOG ref on its own isn't enough. It looks to me like the goodman guides are primary sources, so they don't count either; but perhaps someone could demonstrate otherwise? Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it still count as a primary source as a third party publisher though? BOZ (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear. It depends whether you think the thing they have to be independent of is D&D, or Dinosaurs within D&D. They probably are independent of D&D, because they're not TSR/WotC; but they're probably not independent of Dinosaurs-in-D&D because they're publishers of books on that topic. I think that because this AFD is about Dinosaurs-in-D&D we have to look at it the second way. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait? So now do we have to have books not on chess to prove the notability of chess? That standard is absurd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to have books written by people who don't sell chess sets. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these people sell all the physical tools needed to play D&D. They just sell books. None of them sell dice, and only WotC sells miniatures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of D&D, the books *are* the physical tools needed to play. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. You no more need the books at the table then the rules for chess, but unlike chess, which in theory can be played without any physical implements, you do need a neutral randomizer--that is, dice. Your standard, unsupported by any policy, puts unfair burden on roleplaying games, as it makes any random book on a chess-like game independent (even if no one produces chess sets for that game), but virtually no book on a roleplaying game independent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; in many ways the rulebooks are the game - and not all RPGs have randomisers nor miniatures. You say that applying the standards would make "virtually no book on a roleplaying game independent", but you don't draw a distinction between sourcebooks (which modify a game) and books which merely describe the game. Sourcebooks aren't independent sources for the creatures they describe, in the same way that a book of chess variants isn't an independent source on the topic of those variants. However, a book on the history of role-playing games could be independent in the same way that a book on the history of chess can be. From Wikipedia:Independent sources: "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective." If an author wants players to include their material in their game, that's not a disinterested perspective, so a sourcebook isn't independent of its topic, whereas a review or history doesn't seek to alter an existing game but rather to inform third parties about a topic. That's the sort of coverage you need to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all RPGs use randomizers or miniatures, and those that don't have no physical components. This one, however, does. The rulebooks are no more the game then the rulebook in chess is the game. Is there any source for Hoyle not being an independent source for Wikipedia, or is it something you made up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above arguments. Hobit (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; we have independent sources here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Referenced and as notable as any other type of D&D monster; maybe even more notable, since its only one short article for the entire class of creatures rather than one article per monster. Their use in Eberron was particularly notable—I remember that when Eberron was first previewed by WOTC, many gaming news sources picked up on the "halflings on dinosaurs" angle and used it to represent all of what Eberron is about. I'm sure with a little digging, I can find some reference to that controversy... --Ig8887 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a second independent source would establish notability - could you give any more details? If not, there isn't enough to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe this? [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first link is a single mention; the second is better but still not really about dinosaurs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there may be a general misunderstanding that a mention on a fansite or a passing reference in a third party publication is a reliable secondary source, when in fact they are nothing of the kind. Evidence that these D&D monsters have notability outside of its primary source (a role playing game) needs to be shown by "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". As this article is composed of in universe plot summary, sources that support the in universe content do not provide of notabilty.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article consists of a history of dinosaurs in D&D. It is neither in-universe nor relying on passing references. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment notability isn't a question of content, so whether the article consists of a history or an in-universe description isn't relevant. To be notable, it needs multiple non-trivial independent secondary sources; it doesn't appear so far to have those. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Agreed that the topic must have multiple non-trivial ind. secondary sources. I feel it has them. Let's look at a few:
      - http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=9464 is a (new) secondary, independent reference that shows that Eberron has a focus on dinosaurs. There are tons of such references that could be found, but I used the first one from a Google search. Could be viewed as trivial, but I think it highlights the issue quite well.
      - Goodman games books are clearly non-trivial and independent. Given the books expand upon the original WoTC/TSR work, I'd call them secondary.
      - The various modules are non-trivial secondary sources. Only the stuff by Paizo Publishing (adventure path) is also independent. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are also Dragon magazine articles on the topic (including two in issue 318) that aren't in the article at this point. Also independent and secondary. I'll toss one in. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (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.