Content deleted Content added
Query |
Dream Focus (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''Keep''' - absolutely, for certain. Iconic D&D monster, as others have said, so much so that thay have been copied ad infinitum by other RPGs and computer games. I put a bunch of work into this one recently (used to look like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimic_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)&oldid=291711805 this]); I don't have any secondary sources to reference, but I did the best I could with the available primary sources. That said, if the pundulum swings towards this one not having an article, it would be better to redirect to [[List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters]] than delete. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - absolutely, for certain. Iconic D&D monster, as others have said, so much so that thay have been copied ad infinitum by other RPGs and computer games. I put a bunch of work into this one recently (used to look like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimic_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)&oldid=291711805 this]); I don't have any secondary sources to reference, but I did the best I could with the available primary sources. That said, if the pundulum swings towards this one not having an article, it would be better to redirect to [[List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters]] than delete. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Query''' Have you guys ever wondered why there are no independent sources for these monsters? <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Query''' Have you guys ever wondered why there are no independent sources for these monsters? <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' A very nice article. It has references in a magazine, and thus meets the notability guidelines. The fact that the same company owns that magazine is not relevant, it something people pay to subscribe to. Just like articles in the major newspapers aren't invalid because the parent company owns what they are talking about. And why would any fictional topic of any type have notability outside its own fictional world? Someone earlier said something about real world importance. Is every actor notable for anything outside the fictional worlds of the movies they are in? [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:25, 23 August 2009
Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons)
AfDs for this article:
- Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources to establish notability outside fictional world. — Dædαlus Contribs 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, it isn't notable. However, per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before a title is brought to AfD. In this case, a logical alternative is a redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Also, the title is a plausible search term (imagining a user who has seen the naming patterns for articles on such fictional creatures and extrapolated upon it), and plausible search terms should not be redlinks. Therefore I believe the correct outcome for this AfD would be redirect.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, or possible redirect. Mimics are one of D&D's iconic monsters, and they have been copied by many video games and other sources since then. Of course, I can't find any reliable sources that back up that that was what they were based on (although it is pretty obvious), so that comment really doesn't hold weight in a deletion discussion. I would like to comment that the Pathfinder book Dungeon Denizens Revisited contains six pages about mimics... the same mimics from the Dungeons & Dragons universe, explaining their role in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. This is primarily an in-universe description, but it was published by a third-party Paizo Publishing. The mimic in that book is used under the Open Game License (a free license in a similar way to cc-by-sa-3.0, so the primary source [Wizards of the Coast] didn't have any input on the product). However, Paizo used to be a part of Wizards of the Coast before splitting off to work on their own. I'm not sure if all of that helps to establish notability or not, but I thought that six pages from an arguably third-party source, even if they are in-universe, might help. Regardless, if the article is not to be kept, then a redirect seems much more appropriate than deletion, as S. Marshall said. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Drilnoth, there aren't the references for an article on Mimics. Nor do I think there's a place for Chest- and box-like monsters in fantasy and video games, I'm afraid. Pathfinder is definitely a primary source. I think a straight "keep" is not a likely outcome. Sorry.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect with history intact per Drilnoth, appears to be iconic monster in the D and D universe. Ikip (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included on the and Dungeons & Dragons page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Keep the article or at least the history for later merging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - absolutely, for certain. Iconic D&D monster, as others have said, so much so that thay have been copied ad infinitum by other RPGs and computer games. I put a bunch of work into this one recently (used to look like this); I don't have any secondary sources to reference, but I did the best I could with the available primary sources. That said, if the pundulum swings towards this one not having an article, it would be better to redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters than delete. BOZ (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Query Have you guys ever wondered why there are no independent sources for these monsters? Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A very nice article. It has references in a magazine, and thus meets the notability guidelines. The fact that the same company owns that magazine is not relevant, it something people pay to subscribe to. Just like articles in the major newspapers aren't invalid because the parent company owns what they are talking about. And why would any fictional topic of any type have notability outside its own fictional world? Someone earlier said something about real world importance. Is every actor notable for anything outside the fictional worlds of the movies they are in? Dream Focus 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)