Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 10 September 2012

Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)

Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

This article doesn't explain why it would be notable. Also, a former edit summary says "redirect no notability per afd consensus", but I can't find any AfD, or at least no AfD template on a previous revision of this page.

Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures has lots of similar articles about various creatures. I'm not sure if those really are notable either. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Even failing that, a merge to one of the creature list articles is preferable per WP:ATD, so the nomination lacks any policy-based rationale. In fact, the previous edit summary attempting the redirect is itself misleadingly inaccurate: there has not been a previous AfD on this topic. Jclemens (talk)
  • But there's no significant coverage (the other required part of GNG); being listed as a monster in another game system is not that. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That is what has been asserted, but I disagree. Each separate game that goes by the name of "Dungeons and Dragons"--and those that do not, but choose to emulate the play style and mosters--is independent of the others, in that they have separate editorial teams, publishers, and/or game mechanics. While it's possible to merge these to a D&D game system article, the fact is that this is a fictional element that has verifiably appeared in multiple, independent, notable games. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • But there's no secondary coverage. Just because it exists and in multiple systems is not a measure of notability. All parts of the GNG have to be met. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Sure there is. Use in a non-monster-manual, such as an adventure, is a secondary source usage for any creature. If they were published by the same company, that would be a non-independent secondary source. Likewise, monster-manual-like references from other companies are independent primary sources, and adventures from other companies are independent secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • No, game modules are primary sources; straight-up inclusion of the monster within the module as a random encounter or a specific encounter does not provide any transformative information about the monster, so they remain primary sources. This would be equivalent to a publicly available phone directory as a source for a person - it is all basic fundamental data and therefore primary. Perhaps, and I would say this is exceptional because I certainly don't recall seeing such, but if there's a place where the module designer writes some of his design philosophy or influence on creating the module and goes into detail about wanting to expand the creatures, that would be secondary, but again, I've never seen that in a module. But even if you want to consider it secondary, we're still looking for significant coverage. If all that can be said is "Ant lions appear as random encounters in (game module)", that's nowhere close to significant coverage. This article, like most of the other D&D monster articles, are trying to justify notability by name dropping regardless of the source, but notability doesn't work that way. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - 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. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. As Jclemens points out, this article was previously redirected based on the presumption that one AFD can determine the fate of other articles, and this article was never at AFD previously. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete - not only is this not notable in the real world, it is not notable within the fictional game world. the sources are all primary sources discussing the critter only via "in world" game stat perspectives. there is for this article NO independent coverage. As has been presented at multiple other AfD's - the Paizo and Necromancer sources are neither truly "independent" nor actually discussing the topic of the article the: D&D Ant Lion. they are merely source books with game stats for pseudo-D&D game play and therefore their content is about pseudo-D&D ant lions for which original research is required to make the claims. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So here, you're arguing that they're not independent, because they rely on the Open Game License, but on the article, you're arguing that citing such connections is WP:OR because there's no proof of connectedness. You're arguing out both sides of your mouth, here. Which argument do you want to keep: independence or lack of OR? They cannot both be true, and by advancing both, you are wikilawyering and demonstrating a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Pick one argument, and drop the contradictory one: which do you want to keep? Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I might be mistaken, but what I think he's trying to say is that the sources are either sourcebooks for D&D and therefore not independent of D&D, or they are not sourcebooks for D&D, and therefore not about the topic; because either way these books are describing a creature within its own game system, and not independent of that game system. If it is D&D system then it's not independent of D&D, if it's not a D&D system then it's not about a D&D creature, but rather a different system entirely; neither scenario gives any notability to the D&D creature's article. - SudoGhost 22:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • yes SudoGhost is correct. Thanks for clarifying. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (merging what can be to the monster list articles) - While it's possible to say the appearance of the creatures in other RPG systems are independent sources, that does not quality as significant secondary coverage. We need out-of-universe discussion of these creatures, and that is not apparant nor does google give anything hopeful to meet that. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - A sourcebook is a book detailing the rules of a tabletop game, the sourcebooks are the game. Sourcebooks are not independent sources per WP:RSN, and that's all the article has. Sourcebooks are not and will never be independent sources for the game they are written for, that goes against the most basic fundamental definition of independence; saying a sourcebook is independent of a creature in that sourcebook for would be like saying a video game is an independent source for a creature in the video game. Are these sourcebooks independent of each other? Maybe. Are they independent of the game they are written for? Never. Because of this, the article has zero independent third-party sources and no notability of any kind. - SudoGhost 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Unlike with some of the others, I can't find any sources outside of the game books for this creature. —Torchiest _edits 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Because it's already a disambiguated title, a redirect doesn't make sense ("ant lion" is a search term; "ant lion (dungeons & dragons)" is not.) Merging beforehand makes sense. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    Whoops. Yes,

    • merge with list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters in that case. —Torchiest _edits 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (merge relevant content per Masem) Fails WP:GNG, the article doesn't have "significant content from multiple secondary independent sources". Sourcebooks like Tome of Horrors are affiliated to D&D ("this product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®") they provide original content for the game and don't contain analytic or evaluative claims. They are the game and thus primary sources and cannot grant notability. Other RPGs like Pathfinder are primary source on themselves, thus when they deal with a creature they are not independent from it, neither is what they to the article. Besides, if they are different games than D&D, they're not dealing with the D&D creature, but with they own version. As they do not provide any commentary on D&D version vs their own, they don't provide analytic or evaluative comment (and if they did, these wouldn't be editorially or financially independent comments).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: for those not familiar with the publishing history and licencing relationship of the games referenced, there is an overview at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing 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. There are no secondary sources, only primary ones, in the article, and it is very, very unlikely that there will be any secondary sources, as this creature is wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monster 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 it the list is what should be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per the discussion between TheRedPenOfDoom and SudoGhost above. Either the sources from Necromancer and Paizo are sourcebooks for D&D, and thus not independent sources, or they are not related to D&D and therefore the creature described in them is not what the article is about. Either way, the sources are not usable. Additionally, none of the sources show any sign of real world notability, containing only in-universe information. Rorshacma (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• merge to Antlion. I suspect there is other pop culture material too.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • can you clarify what content you see in this article as "mergable"? its essentially the same reason why this fails as a stand alone article - because all that you could merge to the target would be claims that the antlion was a monster in a game based on the primary sources showing that, yes, it was on the page. there is no third party analysis or content explaining how the appearance was important in the world of fantasy gaming or how the fantasy game version differed or was similar to the real critter - nothing but trivial "See here lookie - it sez 'ant lion' here in this game book!". -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree secondary sources are essential for an article's standalone existence. This does not preclude segments of articles having some primary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that there are cases and information where primary sourcing is OK. however, "In popular culture" sections are meaningless non-encyclopedic trivia if they are merely lists of "i seen it here an i seen it here an i seen it here". They need to be encyclopedic content of analysis and commentary giving the reader a why and primary sourcing cannot provide the why/context.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Depends - if it is a story then yes it is hard to provide analysis. However, D&D rulebooks do sometimes talk about out-of-universe rationales etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
        • • if the sources do contain that content, it would not be a merge as none of that content has been included in the article being discussed here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Well that is your opinion so let's leave it to the closer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
              • please, i am genuinely curious as to what what you consider "out-of-universe rationales etc." as existing in this article to be considered for merging.-- The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Stwong Dewete as game trivia not covered in reliable independent sources. Specifically opposed to any merge; antlion does not deserve this and majik eight-ball sez it's already covered sufficiently in the sprawling lists of game critters. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Merge plainly a redirect is appropriate as a long-existing article there is no reason to break any external links. And sourcing is certainly enough for that... Hobit (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme 00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates