Joefromrandb (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
::Please read [[WP:AGF]] (particularly [[WP:AOBF]]), you seem to have a critical misunderstanding of what "bad faith" means. Also, stating keep without saying why gives no weight to an AfD discussion; AfD is not a vote. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 21:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
::Please read [[WP:AGF]] (particularly [[WP:AOBF]]), you seem to have a critical misunderstanding of what "bad faith" means. Also, stating keep without saying why gives no weight to an AfD discussion; AfD is not a vote. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 21:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
*:Yeah, I guess making comments attacking other editors can make you forget to actually make any constructive debates. Please mind [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] as there is nothing to show that anything being done here is in bad faith aside from the fact that you disagree with them. And on that note, do you actually have any policy-based reason for your argument? Since both comments you left here show that your only argument for Keeping is that you are assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator. [[User:Rorshacma|Rorshacma]] ([[User talk:Rorshacma|talk]]) 21:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
*:Yeah, I guess making comments attacking other editors can make you forget to actually make any constructive debates. Please mind [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] as there is nothing to show that anything being done here is in bad faith aside from the fact that you disagree with them. And on that note, do you actually have any policy-based reason for your argument? Since both comments you left here show that your only argument for Keeping is that you are assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator. [[User:Rorshacma|Rorshacma]] ([[User talk:Rorshacma|talk]]) 21:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::If you think the badgering and battleground mentality of this tag-team is "constructive debate" then I don't know what to say. I'm done here, so come on Sudo Ghost; post below me and enjoy the last word! [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:23, 19 July 2012
Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Death watch beetle (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)
Also the following articles:
- Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Caterwaul (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Cave cricket (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Bunyip (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Bonesnapper
- Crabman
- Crypt thing
- Adherer
- Al-mi'raj (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Atomie (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Ascomoid
- Algoid
- Aurumvorax
- Axe beak
- Basidirond
- Slicer beetle
- Blindheim (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Buckawn
- Cave fisher
- Coffer corpse
- Cooshee
Originally redirects, these were turned into articles with a back and forth between article and redirect. These articles have absolutely zero independent third-party sources. These are all creatures from Dungeons and Dragons, and all of the sources are from publishers for that game system (including Necromancer Games, who "...uses the third edition of the Dungeons and Dragons rule system"). Books published specifically to be used for a game system are not independent sources for that game system; there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources: the sourcebooks for the game itself. These articles fail WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. SudoGhost 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect everything. As nominator said, all articles fail WP:GNG in that there is not a single secondary independent source whatsoever, nothing in Google Books/Scholar, and the topics are unlikely to ever receive notable coverage. Articles should have stayed redirects, the recent restorations were unsubstanciated. I also agree that Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games, is a campain add-on for official D&D books, it is primary content devoid of any out-of-universe comment/analysis and is completely dependent on commercial D&D products as indicated by its disclaimer (p.1): "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®".Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is merely the latest nonsense from the Sudo Ghost-Folken tag team in their crusade against D&D articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ad hominem attacks aren't very convincing; it's almost like the article fails WP:GNG, but if you want to believe I'm out on some "crusade", you're welcome to your ignorance but that isn't an argument against deletion. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is merely the latest nonsense from the Sudo Ghost-Folken tag team in their crusade against D&D articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all, as the "Tome of Horrors" is an independent source. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs)
- No, it was established that Tome of Horrors is not an independent source and not a secondary source, thus not meeting the standards set by WP:GNG. Besides, a single source is not gonna save the article as notable topics require coverage in multiple sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- You asserted it was no an independent source; in no way was such a thing established by the consensus. Please stop holding up things that were not agreed upon by the consensus as established and get with the idea of consensus-building as the operative mechanism for improving Wikipedia. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anyone in [Apparition AfD] coming to defend the independence of ToH. That is the consensus I use to back up my claim. Where's yours ? Yes, I know you and BOZ disagreed with mwhat I say, but merely disagreeing isn't proving, I haven't seen any attempt at consensus-building in your behavior. Contrary to you, I have explained why ToH is not independent, you have not explained, nor tried to discuss or reach a consensus with me, you have just tried to push for your own POV on the question, ignoring all my remarks, arguments, and attempts at discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Scroll down to the bottom of said AfD. I defended it there. Further, in your response to BOZ you have the temerity to state that you assume because he didn't respond to some specific comment by you, that he agrees with you. Getting in the last word, out-trying the other editor's patience, does not give you the weight of consensus. Do us the courtesy of putting forth your own perspective as your own, and please stop trying to assign it weight that they have not be given. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, you haven't defended anything, you've merely declared your POV on it while carefully avoiding to answer to the issues I raised in the discussion. I can't see how you can build a consensus if you refuse to interact with other users. AfDs and discussions are not votes.Besides, you say very nice things about me, but I'm not the only one here questioning the independence of ToH and you still haven't given them any answer that goes beyong "I assert that ToH is editorially independent". We'll never know how/why, but at least we know I'm "getting in the last word, out-trying the other editor's patience". Great.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Scroll down to the bottom of said AfD. I defended it there. Further, in your response to BOZ you have the temerity to state that you assume because he didn't respond to some specific comment by you, that he agrees with you. Getting in the last word, out-trying the other editor's patience, does not give you the weight of consensus. Do us the courtesy of putting forth your own perspective as your own, and please stop trying to assign it weight that they have not be given. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anyone in [Apparition AfD] coming to defend the independence of ToH. That is the consensus I use to back up my claim. Where's yours ? Yes, I know you and BOZ disagreed with mwhat I say, but merely disagreeing isn't proving, I haven't seen any attempt at consensus-building in your behavior. Contrary to you, I have explained why ToH is not independent, you have not explained, nor tried to discuss or reach a consensus with me, you have just tried to push for your own POV on the question, ignoring all my remarks, arguments, and attempts at discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- You asserted it was no an independent source; in no way was such a thing established by the consensus. Please stop holding up things that were not agreed upon by the consensus as established and get with the idea of consensus-building as the operative mechanism for improving Wikipedia. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, it was established that Tome of Horrors is not an independent source and not a secondary source, thus not meeting the standards set by WP:GNG. Besides, a single source is not gonna save the article as notable topics require coverage in multiple sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is "Tome of Horrors" an independent source? It is a primary source; a rulebook written for Dungeons and Dragons for the sole purpose of being used for that game system. Under no circumstances is that even close to independent. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- BOZ, you also appear to have a pretty strong conflict of interest here, given that on the Creature Catalog website your name is specificially mentioned at the bottom of the page as one of the four individuals that did the conversions, and you were the one that began that Creature Catalog conversions in the first place. This becomes a conflict of interest because this same Creature Catalog is specifically mentioned on the first page of Tome of Horrors, under "Special Thanks". In fact, the very last line of that same page is a URL directing people to that same Creature Catalog. Why did you fail to mention this when you decided it was an "independent source"? - SudoGhost 14:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Full disclosure on my involvement with the Creature Catalog website: I was one of the site admins from about 2002 – 2008; I ended my involvement there around the time I became more involved with Wikipedia. I was one of the people who converted monsters from older editions, and posted them on the site. I did not begin the website or its conversions; the last time I checked the site’s banner read "Scott Greene's Creature Catalog", as Scott was the site’s originator. Scott began working for Necromancer Games and left the Creature Catalog to me to run on my own, and soon after the Tome of Horrors was announced as the publishing deal had been struck. I had no direct involvement in the book, and prior to its announcement I had no knowledge that the book was being produced. My understanding is that the text from the website’s entries was rewritten from scratch and that in most cases the game statistics were altered; at least, this was what I recall discovering when comparing between the two. This is why the book says "Special Thanks" to the website and includes a link, because of Scott's involvement and using the site’s content as a starting point. You seem to feel that there is a problem with me pointing at the book as a source, but I don’t see why any of this prevents the Tome of Horrors from being an independent source. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't prevent it from being an independent source, but the fact that you worked with the author on a related project makes you not the most neutral on the subject. But why would it be an indpendent source? It's a sourcebook for Dungeons and Dragons. Why would that be independent for a creature in Dungeons and Dragons? Are you seriously suggesting that this product, produced for this Dungeons and Dragons, was published with no interest in Dungeons and Dragons, and discusses it from a disinterested perspective? This book is not a third-party source, it is not unaffiliated with Dungeons and Dragons, it's a Dungeons and Dragons sourcebook, and requires other Dungeons and Dragons books to even be used properly, as per the very first page. That's not independent under any circumstances, and the fact that the only sources that are found for any of these are Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks means that no, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. - SudoGhost 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Full disclosure on my involvement with the Creature Catalog website: I was one of the site admins from about 2002 – 2008; I ended my involvement there around the time I became more involved with Wikipedia. I was one of the people who converted monsters from older editions, and posted them on the site. I did not begin the website or its conversions; the last time I checked the site’s banner read "Scott Greene's Creature Catalog", as Scott was the site’s originator. Scott began working for Necromancer Games and left the Creature Catalog to me to run on my own, and soon after the Tome of Horrors was announced as the publishing deal had been struck. I had no direct involvement in the book, and prior to its announcement I had no knowledge that the book was being produced. My understanding is that the text from the website’s entries was rewritten from scratch and that in most cases the game statistics were altered; at least, this was what I recall discovering when comparing between the two. This is why the book says "Special Thanks" to the website and includes a link, because of Scott's involvement and using the site’s content as a starting point. You seem to feel that there is a problem with me pointing at the book as a source, but I don’t see why any of this prevents the Tome of Horrors from being an independent source. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- BOZ, you also appear to have a pretty strong conflict of interest here, given that on the Creature Catalog website your name is specificially mentioned at the bottom of the page as one of the four individuals that did the conversions, and you were the one that began that Creature Catalog conversions in the first place. This becomes a conflict of interest because this same Creature Catalog is specifically mentioned on the first page of Tome of Horrors, under "Special Thanks". In fact, the very last line of that same page is a URL directing people to that same Creature Catalog. Why did you fail to mention this when you decided it was an "independent source"? - SudoGhost 14:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is "Tome of Horrors" an independent source? It is a primary source; a rulebook written for Dungeons and Dragons for the sole purpose of being used for that game system. Under no circumstances is that even close to independent. - SudoGhost 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question - Because I would seriously like to know where this "independent source" argument is coming from, because I haven't seen a single explanation for why this would be an independent source, just that it is. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors and the Monster Manual? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons and Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons and Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.
- There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons and Dragons independent of Dungeons and Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. Both publishers are doing so, therefore neither one is independent. - SudoGhost 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tome of Horrors is by a third party publisher with editorial independence from Wizards of the Coast. Further, contrasted with the more questionable case of the Pathfinder SRD, the material in the Tome of Horrors is conversion, no just edited SRD content. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tome of Horrors had no editorial independence since its authors "worked directly with Wizards of the Coast", as stated in the preface. The authors have acknowledged their intention to make this book an official part of the D&D product line. Besides, the book is not secondary, doesn't contain any analysis or out-of-universe comments, but is merely primary in-game content that is intended to be used inside a D&D session purely for gaming purpose, alongside other D&D material. I have already asked you this question but you avoided it: how can you say that a book, stating on p.1 that "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®", could be independent of Wizards of the Coast ? You conveniently chose to only refer to "editorial independence", but WP:IS also mentions "no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." Can you honestly say that there is no conflict of interest, no significant connexion and disinterest in a commercially released book that seeks through contacts with copyright holders to be considered official, and is, for all intents and purposes, by the authors' own admission, useless without official D&D products ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tome of Horrors is by a third party publisher with editorial independence from Wizards of the Coast. Further, contrasted with the more questionable case of the Pathfinder SRD, the material in the Tome of Horrors is conversion, no just edited SRD content. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- That seems to be the crux of your confusion. The publisher is a third-party publisher, not a third-party source, those two terms mean very different things, and are not interchangable. A third-party publisher just means that they aren't the primary publisher, nothing more. Their relationship to Wizards of the Coast is immaterial, so their editorial independence or lack thereof doesn't mean anything, the subject matter is not Wizards of the Coast, but Dungeons and Dragons. They are both publishers that create content for that game, and the only thing that is being cited is content from the game. It doesn't matter if they are independent of one another if neither is independent of that game. We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes? third-party publishers have created video game content, that doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't think anyone would argue that it's notable, yet this is somehow different because it's tabletop? No, it isn't. - SudoGhost 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect All - There is absolutely nothing to indicate any sort of independant notability for any of these creatures. Pretty much every "source" presented is first party. Even if (and that's a pretty huge if, since I don't believe it at all) this "Tome of Horrors" is somehow considered a secondary source, this does not actually help at all. Not only is it a single source, when articles require multiple reliable sources, but it doesn't actually support any of the core information in the articles anyways. Every single one of these nominated articles are just extremely minor monsters (amongst hundreds) that have no notability. Wikipedia has some pretty clear guidelines for determining whether or not subjects meet the notability required for an article, and none of these come close to meeting them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and resubmit individually. While Rorshacma is fundamentally correct that the Tome of Horrors is only a single source (insufficient for GNG), the character of these creatures are such that some (not all, not even most) of them are of sufficient notoriety that I know that other third party resources are available. In particular, I know that the Caryatid Column has other third party resources. Mass AfD of this sort is inappropriate in this instance; discussing individual entries on their own merits is untenable in this format, and it does not grant editors the leeway to address surmountable problems. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please present these "third party sources", so that we can judge of the validity of your claims that a grouped-AfD would not be necessary here ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, listing some of of the ones that you know of here would be helpful to see if a group AFD like this is valid or not. The reason why I ask, is that I actually did search for sources for each creature included before voting to delete all, for precisely the reason you stated. However, I was unable to find any valid third party sources for any of them. Even the Caryatid Collumn, I was unable to find anything that was third party that was referring specifically to the D&D monster, and not to the actual real life Caryatid that we already have an article on. My reasoning was that since none of the included creatures had, as far as I could find looking, any notability, voting to delete them all together would save on a lot of needless bureaucracy by listing every single one as a separate AFD, when the same arguments could be made for each one. But, I would be willing to change my stance on this if you provided some examples to show the contrary.Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Rorshacma - I'll take a look when I get home time permitting, this weekend otherwise. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands all of these articles are functionally identical for the purposes of AfD. However, I would agree that if even a single truly third-party reliable source (not a sourcebook or D&D rulebook of any kind) is presented for one of the articles listed above, then that this AfD wouldn't apply to that article, and it could be removed from consideration here completely. - SudoGhost 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. We'll take a look at them once you have the time. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Rorshacma - I'll take a look when I get home time permitting, this weekend otherwise. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, listing some of of the ones that you know of here would be helpful to see if a group AFD like this is valid or not. The reason why I ask, is that I actually did search for sources for each creature included before voting to delete all, for precisely the reason you stated. However, I was unable to find any valid third party sources for any of them. Even the Caryatid Collumn, I was unable to find anything that was third party that was referring specifically to the D&D monster, and not to the actual real life Caryatid that we already have an article on. My reasoning was that since none of the included creatures had, as far as I could find looking, any notability, voting to delete them all together would save on a lot of needless bureaucracy by listing every single one as a separate AFD, when the same arguments could be made for each one. But, I would be willing to change my stance on this if you provided some examples to show the contrary.Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please present these "third party sources", so that we can judge of the validity of your claims that a grouped-AfD would not be necessary here ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. I neglected to state that while commenting on this massive, bad-faith nomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess making comments attacking other editors can make you forget to actually make any constructive debates. Please mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith as there is nothing to show that anything being done here is in bad faith aside from the fact that you disagree with them. And on that note, do you actually have any policy-based reason for your argument? Since both comments you left here show that your only argument for Keeping is that you are assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator. Rorshacma (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you think the badgering and battleground mentality of this tag-team is "constructive debate" then I don't know what to say. I'm done here, so come on Sudo Ghost; post below me and enjoy the last word! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)