Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) |
TreasuryTag (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
*'''Keep''' This article is well-sourced and scoped and should be maintained per our [[WP:PRESERVE|editing policy]]. [[Greek Mythology in Popular Culture]] is much worse - a grotesque list which needs to be completely rewritten. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' This article is well-sourced and scoped and should be maintained per our [[WP:PRESERVE|editing policy]]. [[Greek Mythology in Popular Culture]] is much worse - a grotesque list which needs to be completely rewritten. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
*:[[Greek Mythology in Popular Culture]] appears to be a red-link, which makse your [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] argument just that little bit more stupid. <font color="#FFB911">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">You may go away now.</span>]]─╢</font> 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:00, 15 June 2011
Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Notable and can be put in other articles
I'm proposing this article for Deletion.
First of all, I have a lot of respect for the D&D game, I am a player/fan, and I have appreciated the work of the editors to provide quality entries about the major subjects. People who work on the WikiProject for D&D have done a great job. However, this particular article (and a category of them), is not of good quality. This has been brought to my attention based on a few related deletion votes, so I've decided to choose one of the more egregrious articles.
The Medusa already has an entry on Wikipedia that explains what the creature is in Mythology. There is also an entry for Greek Mythology in Popular Culture that lists several fictional variants of the Medusa. Furthermore, the article's sole contribution is either a Bibliography of which version of the rules the creature was published in, or an in-universe style of description (that isn't much different from its classic form). If we allow an entry for the D&D Medusa, what about all the different variations in other games. I think the violates the policy for WP:NOTABILITY. JRT (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rather than add a delete tag to several of these, I wanted to bring up the subject that many of the monsters in this list are similar. I don't believe they should all have a seperate article, and many (but not all) of the individual articles are not significant enough to warrant their own entries. Satyr__(Dungeons_&_Dragons), Dryad_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), Manticore_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), Faun_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), etc, are all mostly variants of the classic mythology.
Dungeons_&_Dragons_creatures_from_folklore_and_mythology
Addendum: I would suggest the following possibilities.
- Delete the article.
- Merge the article into Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Medusa, without the bibliography--this can be whittled down to a distinct paragraph.
- Merge the "D&D Creatures from Folklore/Mythology" articles into one single article. This would require some discussion with the D&D WikiProject in terms of categorization. But I think it's clear based on past precedent we should not encourage a separate article for every D&D monster out there.
JRT (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Though the ones you have listed seem okay to receive such treatment at the first glance, I would caution you against anything like mass tagging. Some creatures in D&D are mainly background features, while others are fairly central and important to the property and have significant identities distinct from their mythical inspirations (where they exist) and are have notability through mention in third party products. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- CommentI agree about not mass tagging, and that's why I haven't done so, however, this particular really doesn't add anything. I have no objection to articles about fictional beasts if they suffice to be notable (for instance, Kender which are part of a widely-read novel series), however, not every D&D monster is worth putting in WP either (and should likely be moved to Wikia or other sources), and I think the articles on the mythological based monsters, which are based on the mythological creature, do not need a seperate article on Wikipedia. I have to say about half of the articles in that list would not meet any notability. JRT (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely doesn't need it's own article (it'd never be more than a stub). Strongly oppose anything but a passing mention of this in the Greek mythology's article, since that has the potential to be a massive article and this is but a minor occurence. The last option of a single article for all characters is preferable, but I don't think such an article needs to be categorised according to origin. Instead, I suggest to merge the content into the relevant lists at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Lord knows we don't need another one of those just to categorise the entries according to origin... Rennell435 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Merge per Rennell435 above, as while the isolated, specific subject itself isn't particularly notable, the distant second-best option of merging into the Greek mythology article would rationally encourage clutter. Since D&D is notable itself and conducive to the creation of useful dedicated lists, it should and ought to be put there instead. Edwin Herdman (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This article is well-sourced and scoped and should be maintained per our editing policy. Greek Mythology in Popular Culture is much worse - a grotesque list which needs to be completely rewritten. Warden (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Greek Mythology in Popular Culture appears to be a red-link, which makse your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument just that little bit more stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)