Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. W.marsh 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons)

edit
Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable fancruft. The references section being bigger than the article rings alarm bells. Contested prod. MER-C 08:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge. The fact that it has references is grounds for deletion now? We have an entire category for Dungeons and Dragons creatures, and all of these things are verifiable by sources whose authority within the D&D context is impeccable. Personally, I'd prefer that this be merged to the satyr article, since the D&D satyr is obviously derivative of older mythology; but then we'd see complaints when gaming material showed up in those articles and they began to be listed in D&D related categories, so separate articles for D&D related critters may be for the best. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Properly categorized, well referenced by external non-related sources. What are the specific grounds for deletion here? Arakunem 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A stub, absolutely, and in needs of expansion, but I can't see a need to delete. I'd be happy with it merging to satyr but given the complaints mentioned above, I guess it needs its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending independent references The references are not indepedent of the fictional source itself, and the article provides no real-world context or analysis. This would seem to fail to meet guidelines for minor characters in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (and in essence minor monsters in D&D are the same as minor characters in fiction). I should also point out that this same complaint probably applies to a number of monsters under Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures, most of which only have references from the fiction itself with no outside references to establish real world notability for purposes of WP:FICT. Thus while I'm an avid D&D player, I'm not conviced this article follows the guidelines and should probably be merged into a "list of D&D standard monsters". Dugwiki 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that might have problems as there are lots of creatures in D&D. Listing them all would lead to a rather long list, and while there are some, like Beholders and Owlbears that I think are unusual enough for coverage, I suspect this one wouldn't have an article if not for its mythological derivations. Though it does make me wonder if maybe List of D&D creatures derived from mythology might be a worthwhile list. FrozenPurpleCube 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it would be a long list article, or possible a couple of list articles, of minor characters/monsters, but that's still preferable to a large number of actual articles about minor character monsters with no references outside of the game itself. Dugwiki 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, as far as it goes, there are relatively few monsters of D&D I'd suggest having articles, as most are not iconic enough to really matter, and possibly some directory concerns with a listing of D&D monsters. That might be something outside the scope of a general purpose encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. The article is obviously a stub waiting for expansion. If the vote is to merge, I would urge that it be merged into the [[Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) article instead.--Robbstrd 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a stub. There are dozens like it, and it makes no sense to single this one out. Robbstrd has made an admirable effort to improve this one. BOZ
The fact that there are similar articles probably just means that those articles probably should also be discussed in afd also. I do agree that the articles should be handled relatively consistently. So if this article is deleted or merged to a list, then it makes sense to do the same for the other articles. If this article is kept, then it makes sense to keep the others. Dugwiki 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, 2 for delete, 2 for keep/merge, and 3 for straight up keep. Delete doesn't seem likely to me. I suspect you'll get a similar response trying the same thing on a lot of other similar articles. BOZ
Too early to tell. Keep in mind that these aren't decided as a vote, but rather are decided based on the arguments presented. If the admins feel the deletion arguments are valid, and the keep recommendations are similar to WP:ILIKEIT, then it could be deleted. Dugwiki 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether or not the article is well written. It's whether or not there are independent sources outside of the game itself that refer to the information included in the article. Dugwiki 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are allowed. - Peregrine Fisher 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they're primary sources. It's that the article is only constructed of material from the primary source of the game itself. Per WP:FICT, though, there ought to be some external sources to provide an article about a minor fictional character with real word context or analysis. I'm not saying you can't use the game rules as a source - I'm saying they shouldn't be the only source. Dugwiki 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added another source, want to change your vote? - Peregrine Fisher 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I really don't think that a trivial fan poll run by Wizards of the Coast, the creators of Dungeons & Dragons on the official Dungeons & Dragons website really counts as an indepedent source, especially as the satyr came 6th. If it had come first, it may have some bearing, but not there. Secondly, nobody can change their vote, as AfD isn't a vote. Cheers --Pak21 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT as Pak21 said. No encyclopedic content here. - unsigned: BreathingMeat
  • Delete Appears to be a copyvio from the D&D Monster Manual, although there's just enough conversion of tables into prose that it might squeak by. Still fails WP:FICT, though. Furthermore, a satyr in D&D is nothing more than the legendary creature represented in terms of the D&D game system. I doubt that this article could be expanded, unlike more original creations like the Beholder. At most merge as a small section to satyr. Shimeru 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper, plenty of references, article is only a stub (it is at the moment, anyway), plenty of potential for expansion. No actual deletion reason given (notability is established) and "fancruft" is of course the nominators opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually external notability has not been established within the article. The only references are from D&D rulebooks themselves. To establish notability outside the game, though, you would need published references external to the rules that talk about satyrs in D&D. Dugwiki 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example of what I mean, compare this article to the Beholder article that Shimeru mentioned above. D&D Beholders are mentioned in published sources outside of the D&D game rules, and even have appeared in some popular media or been the inspiration for some non-D&D related creatures. By contrast, it's not clear from the Satyr (D&D) article that the D&D version of satyrs has any notable mention outside of the game rules. So the level of notability for the Beholder extends beyond just the game rules compared to this article about the Satyrs. So Beholder probably does meet WP:Fiction guidelines, but this article about D&D satyrds probably doesn't. Dugwiki 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ecology of the Satyr" from Dragon #155 is a non-rules article that discusses the satyr, and is also not in a rule-book.204.153.84.10
That's an interesting question. Is Dragon magazine actually a publication that is independent of D&D? It is an official source magazine for D&D, and devoted mainly to D&D rules, adventures and source material. Should a magazine devoted almost entirely to D&D be treated as a source for purposes of showing real world notability outside the game? Dugwiki 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, Dragon was still published by TSR, if I'm not mistaken. It's one of the pre-eminent publications on D&D, and should certainly be a reliable source, but I don't think it's an independent one in this case. I could be wrong, though, as I don't have the issue in question to check. Shimeru 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is it actually a rule that independent sources are required to "prove" notability? If so, how many are required? One? Two? Five? I have seen suggestions that editors should try to provide them, but not that it's a requirement for inclusion. 204.153.84.10 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily, but it's actually a somewhat trickier question than it looks. All that's needed to satisfy verifiability is a reliable source. If none of the sources are independent, they are all effectively primary sources. This is acceptable if no extraordinary claims are being made (those would require stronger sourcing). However, it's easy for articles based entirely on non-independent sources to fall into bias or original research, which is one reason secondary sources -- independent sources -- are stressed. Notability suggests that the article topic should be the primary subject of "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." This is, however, a guideline, while the earlier ones are policy; therefore, there's more room for flexibility. As my general rule, if notability is being questioned, I'd want at least one truly independent source among those listed -- if there's one, it's easy to imagine there might be more. Two or more would be even better, of course. Is there anything anywhere outside of D&D/TSR/Wizards of the Coast publications that talks about satyrs as they're presented in D&D (not merely as the mythical creature)? If so, that would be an excellent source. As it is... it's not unknown for an article to be founded entirely on non-independent sources, but it's not exactly ideal, either. Dragon may be judged enough, but the article would be stronger if a wholly independent source (or several) supported it. I hope that answers your question. Shimeru 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it does.204.153.84.10 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, all of this scholastic wrangling over various policies and guidelines is interesting, in a way. My understanding is that primary sources are perfectly valid sources provided that the article simply describes what's in the primary source. Secondary sources are needed only for analysis or interpretation, and I see little of that in the article at issue. As to notability, the Pokémon test is a perfectly valid analogy here: D&D critters are notable for the same reasons that the several species of Pokémons are. As to whether there are secondary, independent sources that discuss D&D satyrs as opposed to other satyrs - since the concept of satyrs predates D&D, this would be a matter of interpretation that's hard to judge. (Need a secondary source for that. :) (There are instances where the D&D mythology added non-traditional elements that were borrowed from nameable sources, and that found their way into later works: the D&D troll is an example.) - Smerdis of Tlön 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the reason we need the sources specifically about the D&D version of the creature is that the article is specifically about the D&D version of the creature. Nobody's suggesting that satyr should be deleted. The base question here is: Do we have enough material about satyrs as they specifically pertain to D&D to sustain a separate article? My feeling is, we don't, and this would therefore be better left to a subsection of satyr or Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) or Satyrs in popular culture or something similar. Shimeru 09:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative view would be that the majority D&D monsters are just as non-notable as the majority of Pokémon, the Pokémon test is a mistake and as such this article should be deleted. That's the view I subscribe to :-) --Pak21 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to the comment about the WP:POKEMAN essay, note the essay is merely a discussion of why some Pokemon monster articles are kept. However, one could argue that Pokeman monsters also frequently have cross-media references outside of the game itself, since they appear on television or films for example. Also note that the essay is not a clear defense that all the pokeman monster articles should be kept. It correctly states that there are currently articles for all the pokeman monsters, but note that many of these articles have not been reviewed in afd. It's certainly possible that a broader review of Pokemon monster articles could result in some of them being deleted. for lack of suitable references or meeting WP:FICTION guidelines. Dugwiki 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all it needs is to be expanded... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added some independant references. It isn't really that hard to find them with a bit of googling. They may not be the best refs in the world, but refs do exist. Let this page live, and more refs can be found. Delete this page, and it's back to sqaure one if the page is recreated. This is our best chance to have a well cited D&D satyr page, let's take it. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - No reason to delete it just because of what you think of as missing references. If that is indeed your problem, just ask for them to be added, don't start a VFD. Also, I really think the word fancruft is used too often as an argument for deletion of these kind of articles, so much that it has nearly lost its meaning. Keep and improve, or merge with the Fey article. --Ifrit 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the burden is on editors wishing to add or keep material to show such references exist. Nobody has yet shown there is a single independent reliable source that makes a non-trivial mention of the Dungeons & Dragons satyr. --Pak21 08:27, 5 February 2007 (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/Satyr_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)&oldid=1249258161"