| abstract
| - Non notable minor creature from Dungeons & Dragons. This is a summary of sections of D&D Monster manuals. I'm tempted to say WP:NOTMANUAL, but I really want to say WP:NOTMONSTERMANUAL. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment: "WP:NOTMONSTERMANUAL" - what does that mean? There's no guideline or policy saying that Wikipedia cannot have articles on Dungeons & Dragons monsters, and such articles have regularly survived AfDs. Regardless of the notability issue, there is no point deleting this page, since it makes a perfectly acceptable redirect. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep, or there's no particular reason not to revert it to a redirect. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC) As pointed out below, if redirected a suitable target would be List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep I agree with BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The above two entries are a pair of textbook WP:ATA violators, and should be discounted in the final analysis barring some sort of expansion or explanation. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with Tarc's analysis, these two comments are problematic. First, they are really misleading, because they recommend at the same time two very opposite actions: "keep" implies that the subject meets the notability guidelines, but "redirect" implies it doesn't. And, as Tarc said, they blatantly ignore that Afd are not votes, neglecting to state why this article should be kept (since "keep" is written first and in bold, we're to assume it's their first choice).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Tarc, sorry about that, I should have been more clear. Yes, "keep" would be my first choice (preference, rather), but since there aren't even any remotely independent secondary sources, and not likely to be, I suggested that it should be restored to a redirect rather than delete outright. I don't believe there is anything wrong with redirecting an article which doesn't display any notability. BOZ (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC) To be quite clear about it, I agree with the above analysis by BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Oh, and it also appears that the afanc was included in the Tome of Horrors series – since that is an independent publisher, that does lend at least a bit towards the idea of not deleting this one. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Sources for notability must be reliable secondary sources (ie proving analytical and evaluative claims), if the monster is merely used as part of the game campain, then it's not a secondary but a primary source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete or redirect because "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" (WP:N). The sources only prove that it exists. Start with developing a section in a list, then start an article per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. WP:NOTMANUAL does not apply; there is nothing about this article that tells you how to play the game. That said, there are no secondary references to support WP:GNG that would merit it having its own article. There is nothing to really merge; the article is not of encyclopedic quality and likely never will be. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Fails WP:GNG, but a reasonable search term. —Torchiest talkedits 18:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment: Actually, there's already Afanc, which is clearly the inspiration for the D&D monster. Is there a way we could merge in some content to that article? I'm thinking now redirecting to the 1st edition list wouldn't make sense, since people would find the primary article first. —Torchiest talkedits 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Actually there is even Welsh mythology in popular culture#Afanc, but it might be nominated for deletion sooner or later since it's completely unsourced...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete - No real-world significance for a fictional creation, no assertion of in-universe importance. If a suitable redirect location can be found then so be it, but this is such a minor and trivial thing that the usefulness is slim. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) There is a suitable redirect - the article that I created Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) as a redirect for. Deletion serves no purpose here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete - Yes, D&D is notable, that does not mean that each and every one of the hundreds of creatures in the game's books are thereby notable. Fictional topics require real-world notability; this article has zero independent reliable secondary sources, and because of this the article has no notability whatsoever. - SudoGhost 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete, non-notable as per WP:GNG, doesn't have any independent secondary source with significant coverage. Same opinion as Tarc on potential redirect (and in any case, I don't want it to be just a page blanking with the history kept intact).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment - There is also a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), which I was make aware of on my talk page. I think it's more appropriate to make everyone aware of this, as opposed to only individuals that !voted delete in this discussion. - SudoGhost 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I also think it's necessary to state that at this point, all the keep! voters here (Polisher of Cobwebs,BOZ, Sangrolu and Torchiest - well, minus Sangrolu who voted redirect) have already !voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination). This AfD is about a D&D monster and it seemed logical that users here might be interested in another AfD about a D&D creature, it just happens that the only !voters who had not yet taken part to the Ankheg AfD are delete !voters, but this is unrelated to the notifications send, keep !voters here would have been equally notified had they not already !voted in the Ankheg AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I also said redirect. —Torchiest talkedits 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1.
* Delete insufficient independent and reliable sources to WP:verify notability of this fictional monster, beyond notability of D&D as a whole. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment - See another related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete - Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT for a stand-alone article. Would recommend a redirect but there is no single page I would default to between Afanc, Welsh mythology in popular culture, and List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Besides, who would search for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) anyways? I never qualify my name searches unless the search box recommends it to me.--Joshuaism (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Who would search for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons)? Anyone who was both A) Interested in Dungeons & Dragons, and B) aware of the naming conventions for Dungeons & Dragons articles. That's why it makes a perfectly good redirect, and shouldn't be deleted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC) a google search didn't provide a high enough number of hits to prove that "Afanc (D&D)" would be a relevant search term on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC) How would a Google search prove anything either way? Obviously if my theory about why people might search for that name is correct, people would be searching for it on Wikipedia, not on Google. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Google being the most popular search engine, it can be a good tool to measure how likely people are to search for the term. If people are genuinely interested in the topic, I don't see why they would limit their search to WP. Unfortunately you can't know the future and thus you can't know how many D&D fans will search for this creature (the assertion that "every D&D fans necessarily knows about Afanc" seems erroneous, at least according to Jclemens[1], who has "never heard of [Arfanc] despite a good decade of playing AD&D 1st edition"), then google is the only way we have of estimating the likeliness of "Afanc (D&D)" being a search term here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) No, that would only make sense if you suppose that people would make exactly the same kind of searches on Google that they would on Wikipedia. The two sites are very different, and it's reasonable to suppose that people would use them differently. And to be absolutely clear about it, I don't suppose that anyone interested in D&D and familiar with the naming conventions of articles about D&D monsters would search here for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), only that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that some of them might. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Note also that Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), which was started as a redirect, was only one of many redirects of a similar nature, and that no one has objected to any of the others. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination)--Joshuaism (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* 'Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, per WP:ATD. This doesn't appear to have independent notability, but the content would fit fine there per WP:NNC. Note also that delete !votes which do not explain why a merger is not an appropriate option are not policy-based reasons for deletion in light of WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC) An implausable redirect it's much of an WP:ATD, and there's nothing with any WP:WEIGHT to merge. - SudoGhost 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* 'Merge to Afanc is it is a plausible search term and the subject matter is very similar. The Welsh mythology in popular culture was created by an editor whose main interest was removing IPC material from various mythological entities leaving material on a creature such as this (frustratingly) scattered across three articles. Content per se needn't be restricted to secondary sourcing, but does for notability, so the meat of the article can happily exist in a parent Afanc article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC) A google search doesn't bring too many hits so I wouldn't say it's a "plausible" search term.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC) It is a somewhat esoteric term, and the fact there is a folkloric creature with the same name and characteristics already makes it a more valid target than a list of... article. Many esoteric topics do not have large volumes of traffic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC) That would be assuming that every person interested in celtic bestiary is also a D&D player, which is bit far-fetched.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I have absolutely no idea how you came to that assumption/conclusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Hard call. The article hasn't been around for any real amount of time, so it's unlikely there are many links to this article. And while Afanc is a reasonable search term, Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) probably isn't. That said, I honestly think an smerge to Afanc is in order as it would be reasonable to have a bit of coverage there (a sentence or two with a link to the D&D list). So SMerge to Afanc.Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep. This fantasy creature is based on real-world mythology and the similarities and differences between the two things help study of this part of folklore and the gaming culture inspired by it. Big Mac (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* The above comments, not explaining why the article should be kept according to policies, amonts to WP:ILIKEIT and should not be taken into account in the closing analysis. Worse, it doesn't seem to be based on any existing article since this one is not about real-world mythology and doesn't mention it. Besides, since the user doesn't ackowledges the absence of reliable sourcing or doesn't propose any relevant source, the user is trying to push for the inclusion of original research in the article, suggesting that a study of similarities and differences between the D&D creature and the mythological creature could be done by contributors themselves.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* Wait, you're not suggesting the two water entities both spelled "A F A N C" are entirely unrelated are you? Hysterical. No-one is suggesting OR - a concept often has discussions of various depictions which needn't do anything except reflect their sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* Please read before commenting. I'm not saying the 2 creatures are unrelated, I'm saying the articles aren't. This article is about the D&D creature and not the mythological creature. As notability is not inherited, the notability of one cannot be used to support a supposed notability for the other. "based on real-world mythology" is irrelevant in a notability dispute. As for the other part, you can only admit that a "study of this part of folklore and the gaming culture" based on "similarities and differences between the two things" doesn't exist yet. If this is an argument to keep the article, then it is irrelevant because it isn't supported by any existing content, or else it is a call to create this content. But the user doesn't provide any source on which to base this content, indicating that such a study would not be notable and not be possible under WP's principle of verifiability (and thus is a very poor argument for conservation), and if it was done, it could only be through OR. In short, the user's argument for conservation is either based on something doesn't exist or if it did, would violate WP's core policies, meaning this "keep" comment is an aberration. I'm eager to see the sources you claim this content supposedly "reflects".Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* It doesn't negate a merge argument. An over-article on an entity called Afanc needn't end at 1980 either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* Agree with what Casliber is saying, and why, exactly, would D&D not qualify as a form of mythology anyway? The point is, the D&D creature on its own may not be notable, but as an "analysis and transformation" of the original mythological creature, it surely can add substance to the base article. There is no notability to inherit if we merge the articles. —Torchiest talkedits 14:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* A WP article arguing that Dungeons and Dragons would be mythology on the same level as Welsh mythology would require extensive secondary sources not to be a huge violation of WP:OR. I'm not saying this will never come to be, but because it's currently not the case it's irrelevant and dreaming about it doesn't solve the notability issue this article has right now. Propose a merge if you want, but keep in mind that developing the D&D content specifically as "analysis and transformation" of the original mythological creature (as opposed to merely "xxx in pop culture") would also require extensive sourcing, and given that you can't seem to find it even for the D&D creature itself, I consider it highly unlikely you'll find it for such a mythocritical approach. But I'd sincerely be delighted to be proven wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* At a minimum, how is a primary sourced mention that "X creature appeared in X versions of D&D games" origjnal research? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC) To be clear, no, that wouldn't be OR. However, actively comparing the two creatures and discussing their differences(which is how I interpreted Torchiest's concept of "analysis and transformation") would already be OR by synthesis without secondary sources establishing the relevance and encyclopedic value of such a discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC) FWIW I agree on that point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep - why not add all the other Ad&D material too - it is clearly important for the gaming fans of AD&D. OracleB (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I'm sure your comment would benefit of a policy-based argumentation as to why this article should be kept. The topic may be seen as important by some, but there are reasonable and well-argumented concerns that the topic does not meet the general notability guideline, and you don't seem to be adressing these.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC) That it may be important for "gaming fans" doesn't matter so much (there are other, more appropriate websites for that). I'm sure a changelog would be "clearly important" for a developer, but just because something is important to a specific group of individuals doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Redirect Per Torchiest, to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters - valid as a redirect to a list for inclusion, but unsuitable/not notable enough to include on its own. BarkingFish 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. I kinda feel like Dragon magazine articles should count toward notability, honestly, without regard to standard conceptions of independence, but that would still only be one notability-establishing citation, so there's no visible evidence that this topic is viable for its own article. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)