Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer

Add links
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 no consensus. Rough balance of numbers, whether the sources are truly independent and reliable shows no consensus in the discussion, and to my eye is pretty marginal and could reasonably be interpreted either way - as the closing admin, I can`t discount one position or the other as being ungrounded in the facts of the case. (Mergers may be appriate with local consensus WilyD 08:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adherer

[edit]
Adherer (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)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES in that they have no "significant coverage from several secondary independent reliable sources". These are all creatures from Dungeons & Dragons, and all the sources in the article are primary, that is, they are either :
a) the D&D official books themselves (everything from TSR/ Wizards of the Coast),
b) commercially published supplements/extensions to the D&D game, thus primary sources of original D&D material and fiction (and not of criticism/analysis as secondary sources are) and not "independent of the subject" (since they have licencing agreement from D&D copyright holders and they are only inteded to be used as part of the D&D franchise). That is the case of Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games, which "...requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"
c) official books from other role-playing games not related to D&D, that happen to publish their own, different fiction on creatures that happen to have the same name, thus primary sources not dealing with the topic (the creatures in D&D) and that don't provide criticism/analysis. That is the case of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game from Paizo Publishing.
For complementary information, these three kinds of primary sources have all been analysed in a previous AfD on similar D&D creatures and were found as not matching the criteria set in WP:GNG, which led to all articles nominated being redirected. The only non-primary source, which happens to be in the Brownie article, is an article from White Dwarf that is a short summary of the creature's in-game characteristics and of the ways to play it as written in Monster Manual, it is devoid of any criticism/analysis and would only allow to write "half a paragraph or a definition of the topic", thus it is not significant, per WP:WHYN. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar for each of the 3 articles gave no results. Not notable subjects, unsuitable for stand-alone articles. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sever Each of these three different creatures has differing sources, as has been shown by the various sourcing efforts on similar creatures that have happened over the past few days. As such, lumping dissimilar creatures together is unreasonable. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jclemens, but I wasn't sure how to describe the position that these should be three separate nominations, as even a similar basic result (e.g. redirect) would have potentially different targets. —Torchiest talkedits 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. We have a precedent where a grouped AfD on similar creatures from the same D&D franchise was accepted by an uninvolved admin. The three articles have the same potential redirect target (List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters), the notability of each of these article was challenged a month ago, [1], [2], [3], so you had time to look for sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they do not have the same potential redirect target. For example, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) could be merged with Brownie (folklore), where all the TSR/WotC sources would become non-primary and could be used as examples of modern adaptations of the concept. You should take a broader view of the situation instead of focusing on removing content. —Torchiest talkedits 23:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unconclusive, some articles from the previous AfD didn't have the same redirect target either. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the articles were withdrawn by the nominator from a previous mass AfD as a goodwill effort when blips of new content had been added during the AfD. However, the blips of new content are still insufficient to constitute any reading of "significant coverage by independent third party sources." per WP:Pokémon test and WP:N delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) This user was WP:CANVASSed to participate here, and as such his opinion should be stricken as the result of partisan recruitment. 2) The "delete" outcome is incompatible with WP:ATD since all three articles are sourced and have multiple possible merge targets, and should be accorded no weight as it is not a policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) this is a false allegations of canvassing, notifications were neutrally distributed between opposers and supporters, user BOZ has also been notified 2) WP:ATD doesn't prevent deletion for a lack of notability, it only proposes alternatives ("could be merged" and not "should be merged"). All three articles are not proprerly sourced according to WP:GNG. TRPOD mentions WP:N, last time I checked it's a guideline, so perfectly valid as an argument.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) This user has been intimately to the point of rabidly involved in the previous AfD and the post coital discussion about what to do with these crappy articles and has has all three of the articles on this users watch list, and so any intimation that this user would not have been involved in this discussion and taken this position is ABSURD. 2)this user questions "Merge" as an option. WTF content is there TO MERGE? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, as the "Tome of Horrors" from Necromancer Games and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from Paizo Publishing are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the WP:GNG despite the strident and repeated objections of the nominator. Additionally, White Dwarf is an independent publisher granting additional notability to the Brownie. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. The nominator has used the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) as an indictment to indicate that all fictional element articles related to D&D are non-notable and thus should be redirected or deleted, when in fact AFD discussions are not normative and all topics should be considered separately. Note that the majority of that previous discussion focused entirely on the Tome of Horrors as a source, and some of the responses concluded that it alone was insufficient; however, additional sources for these three turned up late in the course of the AFD, and I do not believe they were fully considered by most of the participants in determining the result. During the previous AFD, the nominator withdrew these three articles in good faith because of the additional sourcing found, and so the AFD's closer noted that they "are considered to have their nomination withdrawn". Despite this withdrawal, this AFD's nominator and User:TheRedPenOfDoom persisted in edit-warring to keep these three aticles as redirects, insisting that the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well. This faulty reasoning has led Folken de Fanel to redirect dozens of other articles on the basis that a few AFDs and a few discussions on talk pages could proactively determine consensus for any and all similar type of articles and allow a user to redirect dozens of articles without engaging in further discussion. Even if that were true, this argument does not apply to every article that Folken de Fanel has redirected recently; for example, Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), Bruenor Battlehammer, Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons), Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons), and Marilith have all been subsequently restored (each by a different user), and sources were added; in the case of the first two, independent sources already existed in the articles before they were redirected. Therefore, clearly, the argument that the results of the "Death watch beetle" should be applied to all of the articles he has redirected is blatantly misleading. My concern is that if this AFD results in "redirect" or "delete", this will only result in more of the same behavior. Please consider the argument that independent publishers do add to the notability of published material from TSR/WotC. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some question as to the reasoning why I consider these sources independent, although I will admit that I am not as articulate as some other users when it comes to that sort of thing. I am basing my reasoning primarily on that which was proposed by Sangrolu, Jclemens, and Web Warlock in the previous AFD, voices of reason which may have been drowned out by other users trying to shout their opinions above all others over and over so that only theirs could be heard. If that discussion was tl;dr, and you really, really require me to spell it out further, I can try to take my time to articulate my feelings. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If by some convoluted interpretation, you continue to insist that Pathfinder and Necromancer are completely independent, then the critters in those game systems are NOT the D&D critters and so independent sourcing for the subjects of these articles still fails.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those not familiar with the complex publishing and licensing relationships of the Dungeons and Dragons franchise and related gaming source material, you may find a primer here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Death_watch_beetle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Publication_and_licencing_history -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for BOZ's initial "keep" arguments, the consensus at the 21-participants Death watch beetle AfD (and several inputs from WP:RS/N) already identified the "Tome of Horrors" and "Pathfinder Bestiary" as primary sources and thus ruled them out as elements establishing notability. I have already explained that in my nomination. BOZ's insistance in advancing a fringe interpretation of WP:PSTS that has been expressedly rejected by the community has me concerned that his behavior -if pursued- might eventually not be seen as constructive if no effort is made on BOZ's part to consider community consensus. And the White Dwarf source in itself, contrary to BOZ's claim, is not enough to "grant notability" since WP:GNG requires "multiple source", and "significant content allowing to write more than a definition of a topic", which the specific WD coverage is not. On a side note, there was more examples of edit warring and actual refusal of discussion from BOZ and his companions on these 3 articles than from me, and my reasoning wasn't that "the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well", but that a consensus was reached in these AfD as to the qualification of the sources used, and that similarly sourced articles would never survive an AfD per this consensus, and that a redirect was a logical and time-saving solution. I thus ask BOZ not to indulge in further misrepresentation of my actions and motivations, and to be careful to respect our tradition of discussion rather than inconsiderate actions if more bold redirects are implemented. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can apparently even count Jclemens amongst the users who agree Pathfinder/Necromancer et al" just because they're not D&D creatures ..." -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. White Dwarf / were the licensed publishers of D&D content in the UK up to mid 1980, hence their contribution of Adherer in 1978 is inherently NOT third party. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, per Fiend Folio, the White Dwarf sections in which the creature originally appeared, and the Fiend Folio as published by TSR, have both been edited by the same person, Don Turnbull. No independence possible.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd merge Brownie to Brownie (folklore) as they are about the same critter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting proposition, Cas, and one which I disagree with. When we're dealing with both serious and fictional topics, merging them together seems to irritate the serious folks, who resist fictional additions to the "real" topic. Dark matter and Dark matter in fiction are one example that comes to mind. The issue with literature/folklore vs. physics may be less extreme, but there's large precedent for WP:IPC articles to cover fictional and other popular culture adaptations of notable encyclopedic topics, and that's essentially what I see these and other similar articles as being. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am calling this a bad-faith nomination. This and the other AfDs should be ignored. Web Warlock (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you be a bit more verbose? I really don't know that your statement is enough for the closing admin to understand. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given statements the nominator has made on Boz's page, this looks like a retribution AfD for not getting his way. Plus this nominator has a history of only tagging articles and not actually taking anytime to work to improve any of them. By my reading of policy he is skipping over many of the steps outlined in bringing an article to AfD. The issue is one of community. If you want to improve the Wikipedia as a whole then work with in the community guidelines and WITH the community. If the article can't be improved by this method then by al means move, merge or delete. By going directly to delete, the proper vetting process is lost, the community is disrupted and the nominator comes of looking like a vandal with an axe to grind. This is supported when there is no evidence of prior constructive edits. This is the very essence of bad faith, to go in and decide that you know more than the community working on all the articles and using bullying tactics to to get a point of view across. The article may have issues, if might be saved or not, but this is not the way to find out. This is trying to overwhelm editors who do the real work so at least something sticks. Web Warlock (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Coming from someone who calls those who dare to disagree with him "dick editors", and seems to get openly hostile with those pointing out to problems in articles he likes [4], such obvious display of uncivility and battleground mentality is hardly surprising. This seems, unfortunately, to be another typical example of a user whose obvious personal passion for a topic made him lose sight of the encyclopedic aim of Wikipedia, and this obstinate refusal to see this kind of article questionned could eventually be seen as ownership. I will just say that I have respected each and every step of WP:BEFORE, "redirecting to an existing article" has already been attempted, some have reverted the redirects and when I opened a thread to discuss the lack of notability of these articles at Talk:Adherer a month ago and no one replied. When there is disagreement on article notability, WP:AfD is the right venue for that and no one is forbidden to recommand a merge/redirect instead of a deletion, whenever someone try to redirect a D&D article we're told to "start an AfD" so that's what we do, and that's the actual practice when redirects don't stick. I'm of course not surprised that D&D enthusiasts might prefer confidential discussions between themselves (that is, when they're actually willing to discuss) rather than more publicized AfD that might bring more uninvolved and objective users, but that's how it works. You talk about community, but your aim is nothing less than to substract these article from examination by the community at large. Editors are not "overwhelmed" in any way, D&D enthusiasts have seen from previous AfDs and discussions at the D&D Wikiproject over a month ago that this would be coming, and if they see it as overwhelming, then maybe they should have considered not letting all these articles proliferate in the first place. I see no reasons for D&D articles to be treated any differently than any other type of article which notability is questionned at AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources. Please provide an explanation as to how the articles would meet policy, rather that stating they do, your current comment is not strong enough to overcome the nomination rationale. All the articles are sourced to primary sources and as such don't meet the GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's been identified that you don't like it. That's about it. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you're right, "Per BOZ" killed my parents when I was a child so I swore to have my revenge on it one day... Now that we're done with such nonesense, can you drop ad-hominen attacks, and other assumptions of bad faith, or are you going to keep using them to hide your complete absence of valid argumentation to oppose my nomination ? We've already had an AfD on this topic and the fact is that consensus rejected this interpretation. Turning a blind eye to it won't change that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me, but badgering every single keep vote, calling others' positions "fringe interpretations", etc, is a a lot closer to ad hominem attacks and bad faith accusations than what Hobit said. In fact, your behavior here is becoming borderline disruptive. —Torchiest talkedits 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • if the "keep" !votes were actually based on policies or didn't include claims of independence of sources that the !voters either don't know (or are ignoring) have been repeatedly refuted; then there would be no reason to address each one. However, since those issues keep appearing in every "keep" !vote, then apparently the clarifications DO need to keep being repeated.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, you and Folken have repeatedly violated Wikipedia conduct norms, in ways listed above and in others I've enumerated elsewhere, not the least of which has been trying to wikilawyer away good-faith efforts to answer your objections. It's not really anyone's fault but your own that people don't seem to want to be associated with that Javertesque pursuit of one particularly narrow interpretation of notability policy. Fact is, a lot of editors in good standing who contribute to many areas of the encyclopedia don't believe your arguments, see the sources as adequate, and see the articles as notable. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No norms of conducts were violated, at least not by us. And of course, valid argumentation based on actual policies/guidelines and supported by several AfD outcomes, suddenly becomes "wikilawyering". You're always quick to claim that we're "pursuing one particularly narrow interpretation", and that "a lot of editors dont believe our arguments", how come then that your views were systematically shot down at AfD (remember Death watch bettle) and RS/N ? Aren't you indulging in a fit of WP:IDHT ? Jclemens, what you're doing is the very definition of "ad hominem", intentionally portraying us in a bad light, so that you can avoid actually answering arguments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brownie has now been edited and more refs added. Including refs that detail playing this creature as a character, which makes it unique in this mass-AfD. I request that either the AfD for this article be removed or seperated from the other two. The issues are different and to pass a verdict on three without looking at the individual merits of each article is a serious breech of protocol. Web Warlock (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the brownie article like all the other articles in this mass afd is still lacking in any third party sources means that it is still identically situated as all the other articles in this afd (and all the other articles in the previous AfD from which it was removed) in its blatant failure to meet the basic GNG. The only difference is that there is while the other article topics are not even notable within the fictional gaming universe, now perhaps there is a tangential claim that the brownie is perhaps notable within the ficitonal game as having been assigned player character stats, but there is no serious claim that there is any real world notability.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any reason to do that, sources in Brownie don't adress the nomination and don't indicate any individual merit to the article. Brownie is not the only article sourced to primary sources, I don't see any difference with the others. Actually providing secondary independent sources would help validating your opinion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brownie, as it passes WP:GNG with multiple mentions in reliable independent secondary sources, specifically the Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts book and White Dwarf magazine. —Torchiest talkedits 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebut, Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts "Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook® Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" (p.1) and is thus a primary source not independent of D&D , and White Dwarf is already addressed in the nomination as non-significant content, as you don't adress the nomination and don't explain how WD would be significant instead of merely saying it is. Please don't forget AfDs are not votes, you should provide strong arguments if you want your opinion to prevail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware this isn't a "vote", and I provided a suitably strong argument. Requiring the use of official books merely confirms it is definitely coverage about that exact version of the creature, and it's different, independent publisher. Please cease your badgering. —Torchiest talkedits 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A strong argument satisfyingly addresses the nomination, yours don't. And your wrong, requiring the use of official books only means it's a primary affiliated source and doesn't meet GNG criteria for sources. The publisher is not independent since it is publishing a D&D product. Please cease to expect you can advance fringe interpretations that have already been shot down by consensus at previous AfD without being contradicted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your interpretation, and I take exception to your continued description of my position as "fringe". It's frankly insulting and inappropriate. —Torchiest talkedits 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're of course entitled to disagree, but considering this is a discussion that will be evaluated through strength of arguments, I'm merely giving you opportunities to actually demonstrate the validity of your claims, rather than stating your disagreeement. You're free to refuse, but it also means you have to accept your views are likely not to weigh much in the discussion. Your interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by previous consensus at AfD, calling it fringe is pure fact and it is relevant in a debate in which arguments are to be weighed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Celtic Age also fails "primary" source designation. It is a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it being used solely to show that there was a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it. And the White Dwarf is being treated in the same way. They provide no significant content about the subject of the article- they are merely being used as proof of their own existance.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read any of these sources? Do you know what they contain? If not then you are just guessing. I spend hours looking this stuff up, finding sources, unless you are willing to do some of the work as well then you are only making commentary from a point of view of no actual knowledge. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge as they say. Web Warlock (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there were actually anything of substance within these sources, one would have to assume that someone who had spent hours and hours looking it up would have actually included the substantial information and commentary and analysis within the article to support their claims that substantial coverage existed. Because the only other option would be to assume that the researcher was incompetent, and I wouldn't want to do that without proof.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main argument in the AfD is about the nature (ie primary/secondary and affiliated/independent) of sources. Believe it or not, I really appreciate the good faith effort that was done in finding source, but my comment is not on your effort or you as a contributor. It is on the nature of the source presented, that doesn't adress the reason I opened this AfD, and what makes me say that is written in p.1 of the source. On a side note, "Mine is bigger than yours" comment don't belong in AfD (nor anywhere else on WP, I guess).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have problems reading and like hearing the sound of your own voice. CallawayRox (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to the appropriate Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Boz's argument falls flat on its face in that Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing - or White Dwarf, or Avalanche Press in the case cited here - are not independent sources in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that discuss the monsters - these are primary sources that simply use the same monster. Between all three of these articles, there is no secondary sources, only primary ones; and it is very, very unlikely that there will be any secondary sources, as these creatures are wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monsters as part of a list of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as as a group they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them to the lists is what should be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: if it wasn't discussing the Brownie of D&D then it wouldn't count as a source. If it does discuss it, it's not independent. Could you explain what kind of source you _would_ consider acceptable for this type of thing? And could you distinguish how, say, a baseball player need not be notable outside of baseball but this does? I can sort of see the point, but it does feel a lot like "because I said feel that way" and the same argument could be applied to a ton of things that we accept as notable (actors, authors, etc.) Hobit (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems you're confusing the area in which a topic might be notable with the actual elements that build this notability. D&D creatures don't have to exist outside D&D to be notable, but the sources used to establish notability sure have to be completely independent of D&D (ie not being an official D&D magazine or extension, and not being another game that is just making primary use of a creature). We're only saying D&D creatures must have significant coverage from secondary independent sources, and D&D modules or other games that make primary use of the creature are neither secondary nor independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - If the creatures appearing in the other publications are meant to actually be the same creature, ie they were officially licensed or borrowed from TSR/Wizards, then the sources would not be independent. These would be first party sourcebooks on the creatures. If they are not specifically meant to be the exact same creatures, then they would not fall within the scope of the articles in question as they would not be the D&D specific versions of these creatures, thus the references to them would be invalid. Additionally, whatever the status of the sources being first party or not is, they still fail to establish any sort of notability for these fictional elements. The information contained within the sources pretty much only contain in-universe information, and do nothing to establish any of the creatures having any sort of real world notability. I would not be opposed to a selective merge if others felt that would be appropriate, however. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all First, because I believe that the coverage is sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG, despite the large volumes of text from those who disagree. But most originally, and specifically speaking to Bushranger's and Rorschacma's merge and oppose, is because there is no single merge target for these creatures. "Dungeons & Dragons" is at least five separate product lines, and Pathfinder and other D&D-alike games are separate entities entirely. So, since there's no such thing as a list of monsters in fantasy role playing games, there is no merge target for the articles, each of which incorporate content from a half a dozen or so separate games. Note that I just wrote that essay earlier today and this is the first time I've cited it, as some of the recent thoughtful views different than mine prompted some detailed thinking on the matter, unlike much of the recent discussion on the topic which simply kept repeating contested assertions as if saying them again and again would make them more convincing. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that the ability to split content across multiple appropriate pages somehow means an article cannot be merged. The articles are already split into edition, and fortunately each edition has a main article for the redirect target. It is already conveniently centralized and divided by edition, so that the merge can put the first edition of a creature into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, the second edition into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, and so on. As merging is an alternative to deletion, if that alternative is not possible, then the article would then be deleted. A deletion without an alternative is a deletion, not a keep. - SudoGhost 07:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure it's possible, just like it's possible to have the same content about a non-notable band member copied into the article of each notable band to which he or she ever belonged... but longstanding consensus is to not do that, and keep the information together in one place, even if it doesn't necessarily meet notability guidelines. Why do you think notability has remained perpetually a guideline rather than a policy like WP:V? Because there are exceptions that are logically necessary to make the encyclopedia cover some topics smoothly, and I believe this to be one of them. Oh, and as has been argued above, either Pathfinder is or is not D&D. If it's not D&D, then including Pathfinder monsters in a central list of D&D monsters would be inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it's not the same content. Each piece of the article has a place in a notable article, whereas these articles themselves are completely without notability. I don't think it's logical to say that that notability does not apply just because we cannot copy and paste the entirety of the article into another article. The band consensus you refer to is the opposite of this situation, that if two or more people are notable outside of a band, that the band is also notable (also sometimes known as a supergroup). The consensus you refer to is that an otherwise non-notable group might (per your comments on guidelines) be notable due to the individual members being notable. This is not similar to that situation, there are no smaller elements (such as a single instance of a creature in a single book) that give notability to the larger whole. If it were the case that the 3rd edition of the Brownie, for example, were completely notable, then that logic would have a great deal of merit, as it would be "a creature article which contains an independently notable version of the creature", but that's not the case in any of these articles. - SudoGhost 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jclemens, there's a huge flaw in your argument. First you claim in your recommandation that the content is "sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG", then you claim it's a case of WP:NSMT, as an exception to the notability guideline. If you feel the need to create an exception to WP:N, then it means you're de facto acknowledging the articles in themselves don't meet WP:GNG and need an exception to survive (this is clearly stated in the essay you wrote: "One well-established exception to the general notability guideline is the issue of when content is not separately notable, but has no single merge target"). So your argument is currently contradictory and that makes it unacceptable, an article can't at the same time meet GNG and need an exception to GNG because it otherwise doesn't meet GNG. For the sake of coherence, can you strike one of your arguments ? As to your second argument (again assuming that's the one you want us to follow), why can't we just have each creature merged to appropriate article and have redirects for each, like Brownie (D&D), Brownie (D&D 3rd), Brownie (Pathfinder)... It is perfectly possible to still have WP:GNG implemented, why this bias towards a denial of WP:GNG instead of just regular editing wich would follow WP:GNG? An exception to a guideline should remain an exception, not an excuse not to follow it that has no grounds.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adherer&oldid=1249259870"