Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray render

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 List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gray render

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This creature does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Redirect or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters would also be acceptable, but I think the best thing to do is just delete the page. Wikia is a better place for this sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia, but it fails WP:GNG - the sources are only the creator. The article also talks about the Pathfinder critter of the same name sourced to a primary source for the Pathfinder critter. But, either 1) the Pathfinder source is talking about something other than what the lead says this article is about "a critter from D&D" and it is an WP:OR violation to include it; or 2) if our article is about "gray render is a fictional critter used in D&D and its clones", then we have only primary sources. With failure of GNG, the options are delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the only way they could possibly be considered "separate" companies is if you completely ignore the fact that one was bought out by the other and all its related intellectual property rights, and one is officially licensed producer of content. the bar is no higher here than it is for WP:Pokémon test. Your ITICCDMPRIPR position is not one that is supported by any rational reading or application of WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Except that the license is free and permissive; Paizo is no more related to TSR/Wizards/Hasboro than any particular software developer using the GNU Public License is affiliated with the Free Software Foundation. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When publishing The Dragon, they were under the non-free and non-open official license procedures. When publishing Pathfinder content, they are NOT publishing D&D content - they are publishing Pathfinder D20 content and so are NOT producing content about the subject of the article: the D&D Critter. Or if the subject is not D&D Grey Render but rather Grey Render critter from D&D and its clone games then Piazo is as much completely primary as WotC. And in any manner, as game guides, there is nothing actually about the subject of the article, merely "how to use it in a game". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 19 September 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.