Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:21, 28 August 2012

Adherer

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)

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 _edits 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  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, , , , so you had time to look for sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  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 _edits 23:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  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)

• 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:POKEMON and WP:N delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• keep per BOZ. And yes, I realize there is a long discussion above, and yes I agree with BOZ. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  "Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  No, it hasn't. You keep stating that is has, but then you can't point to a single discussion, closed by an uninvolved administrator, that adjudicated things in such a manner, can you? Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yes it has, see Death watch beetle AfD. Ask the closing admin if you doubt it. Several articles were sourced to multiple D&D sourcebooks and have been redirected per the admin, which couldn't have happened if they weren't primary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• keep Adherer and Caryatid Column - it is an interesting one as they were submissions to White Dwarf that was then adopted by TSR (itself a secondary source at the time) as was almost everything else that ended up in the Fiend Folio. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  You are not giving arguments that would substanciate your recommandation to keep. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". TSR is obviously not a secondary nor independent source on D&D, has never been and never will be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I'd merge Brownie to Brownie (folklore) as they are about the same critter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • But they are not notable topics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You are asserting that Brownie (folklore) is not a notable topic? Please clarify. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm saying WP:IPC articles aren't exempted from being notable themselves, if that's how you want to protray these articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, I think that based on your nomination statement absolutely no one is confused that that's your belief about these articles. Why you felt the need to restate that in an ambiguous manner in the middle of a different conversation is a mystery to me, though. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well hold on a second. Is Brownie (folklore) really a "serious" topic? It's an imaginary creature either way. I could see the D&D information being laid out as type of modern participatory folklore. —Torchiest _edits 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes. Like Centaurs, Dragons, Minotaurs, and the rest, many of the 1st Ed. Monster Manual creatures were based on previous folklore. How they've been handled in Misplaced Pages has varied widely. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • But even in the Brownie (folklore) "In popular culture" section, you would be in trouble because there is only the primary sources of the D&D sourcebooks and no third party commentary or analysis showing how the brownie (folklore)'s appearanc in RPG games such as D&D is notable or encyclopedic. Just the primary sources that have the in game stats. If there were any significant third party commentary about the RPG brownie, we wouldn't be at this AfD.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
      • 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
• Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  "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)

  • No, it's been identified that you don't like it. That's about it. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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 _edits 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • Look, you and Folken have repeatedly violated Misplaced Pages 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)
            • 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)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates