Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassin (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 redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). There's consensus that the Assassin class has significant coverage, but that it's best utilized on the Character class article. Several 'keep' votes support redirect as a second choice, and a handful are very light on any substantive argument for outright keeping the article as-is. For this reason, I've closed this accordingly as restoring the redirect. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (Dungeons & Dragons)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Just a bit more fancruft. No real world notability. As per WP:GAMEGUIDE, this could be redirected to an appropriate list somewhere, but not sure where. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are several independent sources cited in the article, several sources added since the AFD started, and likely more to exist, but failing that restore the redirect that was undone earlier today rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless there are sources actually discussing things from a significant real world perspective. TTN (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TTN.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). I would restore the original redirect as this topic as received coverage in third-party sources, but I am uncertain if it is enough to support enough notability for a separate article. This is also a viable search term so I think a redirect would be much better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character classes are a major feature of a major game. Clear notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get why you constantly repeat this argument. You clearly know how Wikipedia's notability works. Major or minor are completely subjective terms. Sources are the only things that matter. TTN (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clearly do. I've been here a long time. But I apply common sense to these debates instead of (non-existent) "rules". It's a great pity some other editors appear incapable of doing this. The apparent inability of some to get their heads around common sense and WP:BURO is one of the worst things about editing Wikipedia. Nothing here is set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that your definition of important is completely subjective, right? If there isn't objective criteria for inclusion, that opens it up for literally every minutia in every work of fiction. I'm sure you'd try to argue that it's "obvious" Tolkien and Lovecraft are more important than X video game or Y TV show released in the last thirty years, but many would disagree with you. TTN (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Some sources seemed promising, but one is a non-notable blog, and one book was used to source the class being removed in 2nd edition. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) as not individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary sources satisfy notability. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). The coverage really does not show any independent notability for the subject. Even the handful of non-primary sources are doing little more than saying "This was/was not a thing in this edition", which really isn't substantial enough coverage to establish notability, or to justify splitting this off from the main article on character classes. Rorshacma (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bee BOZ and AugusteBlanqui. There are already sufficient independent sources in the article to satisfy notability. It can stand to use more refs, but that's not a reason for deletion. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a Reception section to show coverage of the character class for notability. The publication history section needs to be cleaned up, but per Oknazevad that's not a reason to delete it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you’ve taken a bunch of minor mentions and given them vastly more weight than deserved. Even ignoring my opinion on the sources, you should definitely cut that down to a single paragraph. TTN (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Rant article highlighted 20 D&D classes of all time and listed the 1E assassin as the 5th most broken of all time and then how the class became less broken in 3E.
Geek & Sundry and Game Rant both broke down the 5E rogue of which the assassin is a subclass - both articles explain why the assassin subclass is weaker than other rogue subclasses (compare and contrast isn't minor).
Diehard Gamefan is a minor mention of the class in 4E. I'm definitely struggling to find info on the class from 4E.
ComicBook breaks down a popular character (GoT Arya Stark) in terms of the 5E assassin (ie when we think about a TV character we then compare their actions to D&D character classes). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is a Top X article from a site that has released 38 pop culture lists dated 11/26/19. #2 is yet another dime a dozen Top X. #3 has no commentary on the topic at all. #4 is a nonsense pop culture article. They are not of any quality, especially not so as to require a paragraph each. TTN (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Geek and Sundry is hardly 'another dime a dozen top X.' It's a major media outlet in the industry and enough to confer GNG outright. Reading through these rake of delete nominations I'm left with the impression that some people WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT popular culture articles on Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top X lists are the bread and butter of lazy journalism. They are easy to pump out, easy to fake (as in the writer needs no real knowledge, they can just stop by Wikipedia for example), and require no editorial standards. They in no way an indicator of notability when these sites pump out list after list after list. It'd be like using Watch Mojo YouTube videos as a source. TTN (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness is picking swashbuckler as the #1 rogue archetype. Geek and Sundry is no starched Le Monde or New York Times (both of which have committed their share of lazy journalism to be fair) but as I said, it's a major media outlet for the industry and clearly contributes to WP:SIGCOV.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "just a bit more fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion; neither is WP:GAMEGUIDE, as this article is neither an excessive description of game mechanics nor a walkthrough or means by which to play the game. Per User:BOZ above, sufficient sources exist to meet the threshold for notability.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to indicate a need for a separate article. Just finding lots of passing mentions in directory like listings of the characteristics of the game does not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, merge and retarget to Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons), of which it's a subclass – a better target than the more general Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). It differs from the rogue class only in minor ways, and has developed in parallel with it. We don't need individual articles on every D&D subclass anymore than we need articles on every species of D&D troll (compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant two-headed troll) – that's wikia stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enought secondary sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2019 (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.