Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sever Each of these three different creatures has differing sources, as has been shown by the various sourcing efforts on similar creatures that have happened over the past few days. As such, lumping dissimilar creatures together is unreasonable. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Jclemens, but I wasn't sure how to describe the position that these should be three separate nominations, as even a similar basic result (e.g. redirect) would have potentially different targets. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree. We have a precedent where a grouped AfD on similar creatures from the same D&D franchise was accepted by an uninvolved admin. The three articles have the same potential redirect target (List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters), the notability of each of these article was challenged a month ago, [1], [2], [3], so you had time to look for sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they do not have the same potential redirect target. For example,

  Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) could be merged with Brownie (folklore), where all the TSR/WotC sources would become non-primary and could be used as examples of modern adaptations of the concept. You should take a broader view of the situation instead of focusing on removing content. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Unconclusive, some articles from the previous AfD didn't have the same redirect target either. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the articles were withdrawn by the nominator from a previous mass AfD as a goodwill effort when blips of new content had been added during the AfD. However, the blips of new content are still insufficient to constitute any reading of "significant coverage by independent third party sources." per
  WP:N delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 1) This user was
    WP:ATD since all three articles are sourced and have multiple possible merge targets, and should be accorded no weight as it is not a policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • 1) this is a false allegations of canvassing, notifications were neutrally distributed between opposers and supporters, user BOZ has also been notified 2)
      WP:N, last time I checked it's a guideline, so perfectly valid as an argument.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • 1) This user has been intimately to the point of rabidly involved in the previous AfD and the post coital discussion about what to do with these crappy articles and has has all three of the articles on this users watch list, and so any intimation that this user would not have been involved in this discussion and taken this position is ABSURD. 2)this user questions "Merge" as an option. WTF content is there TO MERGE? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, as the "Tome of Horrors" from
  Marilith have all been subsequently restored (each by a different user), and sources were added; in the case of the first two, independent sources already existed in the articles before they were redirected. Therefore, clearly, the argument that the results of the "Death watch beetle" should be applied to all of the articles he has redirected is blatantly misleading. My concern is that if this AFD results in "redirect" or "delete", this will only result in more of the same behavior. Please consider the argument that independent publishers do add to the notability of published material from TSR/WotC. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There has been some question as to the reasoning why I consider these sources independent, although I will admit that I am not as articulate as some other users when it comes to that sort of thing. I am basing my reasoning primarily on that which was proposed by Sangrolu, Jclemens, and Web Warlock in the previous AFD, voices of reason which may have been drowned out by other users trying to shout their opinions above all others over and over so that only theirs could be heard. If that discussion was tl;dr, and you really, really require me to spell it out further, I can try to take my time to articulate my feelings. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by some convoluted interpretation, you continue to insist that Pathfinder and Necromancer are completely independent, then the critters in those game systems are NOT the D&D critters and so independent sourcing for the subjects of these articles still fails.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with the complex publishing and licensing relationships of the Dungeons and Dragons franchise and related gaming source material, you may find a primer here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Death_watch_beetle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Publication_and_licencing_history -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for BOZ's initial "keep" arguments, the consensus at the 21-participants

refusal of discussion from BOZ and his companions on these 3 articles than from me, and my reasoning wasn't that "the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well", but that a consensus was reached in these AfD as to the qualification of the sources used, and that similarly sourced articles would never survive an AfD per this consensus, and that a redirect was a logical and time-saving solution. I thus ask BOZ not to indulge in further misrepresentation of my actions and motivations, and to be careful to respect our tradition of discussion rather than inconsiderate actions if more bold redirects are implemented. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You can apparently even count Jclemens amongst the users who agree Pathfinder/Necromancer et al" just because they're not D&D creatures ..." -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per BOZ. And yes, I realize there is a long discussion above, and yes I agree with BOZ. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it hasn't. You keep stating that is has, but then you can't point to a single discussion, closed by an uninvolved administrator, that adjudicated things in such a manner, can you? Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it has, see Death watch beetle AfD. Ask the closing admin if you doubt it. Several articles were sourced to multiple D&D sourcebooks and have been redirected per the admin, which couldn't have happened if they weren't primary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Adherer and Caryatid Column - it is an interesting one as they were submissions to White Dwarf that was then adopted by TSR (itself a secondary source at the time) as was almost everything else that ended up in the Fiend Folio. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not giving arguments that would substanciate your recommandation to keep. Per

  WP:AFDFORMAT, "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". TSR is obviously not a secondary nor independent source on D&D, has never been and never will be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Per "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. White Dwarf / were the licensed publishers of D&D content in the UK up to mid 1980, hence their contribution of Adherer in 1978 is inherently NOT third party. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, per Fiend Folio, the White Dwarf sections in which the creature originally appeared, and the Fiend Folio as published by TSR, have both been edited by the same person, Don Turnbull. No independence possible.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd merge Brownie to Brownie (folklore) as they are about the same critter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting proposition, Cas, and one which I disagree with. When we're dealing with both serious and fictional topics, merging them together seems to irritate the serious folks, who resist fictional additions to the "real" topic.
    WP:IPC articles to cover fictional and other popular culture adaptations of notable encyclopedic topics, and that's essentially what I see these and other similar articles as being. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • But they are not notable topics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are asserting that Brownie (folklore) is not a notable topic? Please clarify. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm saying
          WP:IPC articles aren't exempted from being notable themselves, if that's how you want to protray these articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Well, yes, I think that based on your nomination statement absolutely no one is confused that that's your belief about these articles. Why you felt the need to restate that in an ambiguous manner in the middle of a different conversation is a mystery to me, though. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well hold on a second. Is Brownie (folklore) really a "serious" topic? It's an imaginary creature either way. I could see the D&D information being laid out as type of modern participatory folklore. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Like Centaurs, Dragons, Minotaurs, and the rest, many of the 1st Ed. Monster Manual creatures were based on previous folklore. How they've been handled in Wikipedia has varied widely. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But even in the Brownie (folklore) "In popular culture" section, you would be in trouble because there is only the primary sources of the D&D sourcebooks and no third party commentary or analysis showing how the brownie (folklore)'s appearanc in RPG games such as D&D is notable or encyclopedic. Just the primary sources that have the in game stats. If there were any significant third party commentary about the RPG brownie, we wouldn't be at this AfD.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am calling this a bad-faith nomination. This and the other AfDs should be ignored. Web Warlock (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be a bit more verbose? I really don't know that your statement is enough for the closing admin to understand. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given statements the nominator has made on Boz's page, this looks like a retribution AfD for not getting his way. Plus this nominator has a history of only tagging articles and not actually taking anytime to work to improve any of them. By my reading of policy he is skipping over many of the steps outlined in bringing an article to AfD. The issue is one of community. If you want to improve the Wikipedia as a whole then work with in the community guidelines and WITH the community. If the article can't be improved by this method then by al means move, merge or delete. By going directly to delete, the proper vetting process is lost, the community is disrupted and the nominator comes of looking like a vandal with an axe to grind. This is supported when there is no evidence of prior constructive edits. This is the very essence of bad faith, to go in and decide that you know more than the community working on all the articles and using bullying tactics to to get a point of view across. The article may have issues, if might be saved or not, but this is not the way to find out. This is trying to overwhelm editors who do the real work so at least something sticks. Web Warlock (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coming from someone who calls those who dare to disagree with him "dick editors", and seems to get openly hostile with those pointing out to problems in articles he likes [4], such obvious display of
        WP:AfD is the right venue for that and no one is forbidden to recommand a merge/redirect instead of a deletion, whenever someone try to redirect a D&D article we're told to "start an AfD" so that's what we do, and that's the actual practice when redirects don't stick. I'm of course not surprised that D&D enthusiasts might prefer confidential discussions between themselves (that is, when they're actually willing to discuss) rather than more publicized AfD that might bring more uninvolved and objective users, but that's how it works. You talk about community, but your aim is nothing less than to substract these article from examination by the community at large. Editors are not "overwhelmed" in any way, D&D enthusiasts have seen from previous AfDs and discussions at the D&D Wikiproject over a month ago that this would be coming, and if they see it as overwhelming, then maybe they should have considered not letting all these articles proliferate in the first place. I see no reasons for D&D articles to be treated any differently than any other type of article which notability is questionned at AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources. Please provide an explanation as to how the articles would meet policy, rather that stating they do, your current comment is not strong enough to overcome the nomination rationale. All the articles are sourced to primary sources and as such don't meet the GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's been identified that you don't like it. That's about it. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right, "Per BOZ" killed my parents when I was a child so I swore to have my revenge on it one day... Now that we're done with such nonesense, can you drop ad-hominen attacks, and other assumptions of bad faith, or are you going to keep using them to hide your complete absence of valid argumentation to oppose my nomination ? We've already had an AfD on this topic and the fact is that consensus rejected this interpretation. Turning a blind eye to it won't change that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, but badgering every single keep vote, calling others' positions "fringe interpretations", etc, is a a lot closer to ad hominem attacks and bad faith accusations than what Hobit said. In fact, your behavior here is becoming borderline disruptive. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • if the "keep" !votes were actually based on policies or didn't include claims of independence of sources that the !voters either don't know (or are ignoring) have been repeatedly refuted; then there would be no reason to address each one. However, since those issues keep appearing in every "keep" !vote, then apparently the clarifications DO need to keep being repeated.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, you and Folken have repeatedly violated Wikipedia conduct norms, in ways listed above and in others I've enumerated elsewhere, not the least of which has been trying to wikilawyer away good-faith efforts to answer your objections. It's not really anyone's fault but your own that people don't seem to want to be associated with that Javertesque pursuit of one particularly narrow interpretation of notability policy. Fact is, a lot of editors in good standing who contribute to many areas of the encyclopedia don't believe your arguments, see the sources as adequate, and see the articles as notable. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No norms of conducts were violated, at least not by us. And of course, valid argumentation based on actual policies/guidelines and supported by several AfD outcomes, suddenly becomes "wikilawyering". You're always quick to claim that we're "pursuing one particularly narrow interpretation", and that "a lot of editors dont believe our arguments", how come then that your views were systematically shot down at AfD (remember Death watch bettle) and RS/N ? Aren't you indulging in a fit of
              WP:IDHT ? Jclemens, what you're doing is the very definition of "ad hominem", intentionally portraying us in a bad light, so that you can avoid actually answering arguments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
              ]

Brownie has now been edited and more refs added. Including refs that detail playing this creature as a character, which makes it unique in this mass-AfD. I request that either the AfD for this article be removed or seperated from the other two. The issues are different and to pass a verdict on three without looking at the individual merits of each article is a serious breech of protocol. Web Warlock (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the brownie article like all the other articles in this mass afd is still lacking in any third party sources means that it is still identically situated as all the other articles in this afd (and all the other articles in the previous AfD from which it was removed) in its blatant failure to meet the basic GNG. The only difference is that there is while the other article topics are not even notable within the fictional gaming universe, now perhaps there is a tangential claim that the brownie is perhaps notable within the ficitonal game as having been assigned player character stats, but there is no serious claim that there is any real world notability.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason to do that, sources in Brownie don't adress the nomination and don't indicate any individual merit to the article. Brownie is not the only article sourced to primary sources, I don't see any difference with the others. Actually providing secondary independent sources would help validating your opinion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Brownie, as it passes
  WP:GNG with multiple mentions in reliable independent secondary sources, specifically the Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts book and White Dwarf magazine. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Rebut, Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts "Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook® Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" (p.1) and is thus a primary source not independent of D&D , and White Dwarf is already addressed in the nomination as non-significant content, as you don't adress the nomination and don't explain how WD would be significant instead of merely saying it is. Please don't forget

  AfDs are not votes, you should provide strong arguments if you want your opinion to prevail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm well aware this isn't a "vote", and I provided a suitably strong argument. Requiring the use of official books merely confirms it is definitely coverage about that exact version of the creature, and it's different, independent publisher. Please cease your badgering. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A strong argument satisfyingly addresses the nomination, yours don't. And your wrong, requiring the use of official books only means it's a primary affiliated source and doesn't meet GNG criteria for sources. The publisher is not independent since it is publishing a D&D product. Please cease to expect you can advance fringe interpretations that have already been shot down by consensus at previous AfD without being contradicted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with your interpretation, and I take exception to your continued description of my position as "fringe". It's frankly insulting and inappropriate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're of course entitled to disagree, but considering this is a discussion that will be evaluated through strength of arguments, I'm merely giving you opportunities to actually demonstrate the validity of your claims, rather than stating your disagreeement. You're free to refuse, but it also means you have to accept your views are likely not to weigh much in the discussion. Your interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by previous consensus at AfD, calling it fringe is pure fact and it is relevant in a debate in which arguments are to be weighed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Celtic Age also fails "primary" source designation. It is a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it being used solely to show that there was a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it. And the White Dwarf is being treated in the same way. They provide no significant content about the subject of the article- they are merely being used as proof of their own existance.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read any of these sources? Do you know what they contain? If not then you are just guessing. I spend hours looking this stuff up, finding sources, unless you are willing to do some of the work as well then you are only making commentary from a point of view of no actual knowledge. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge as they say. Web Warlock (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were actually anything of substance within these sources, one would have to assume that someone who had spent hours and hours looking it up would have actually included the substantial information and commentary and analysis within the article to support their claims that substantial coverage existed. Because the only other option would be to assume that the researcher was incompetent, and

I wouldn't want to do that without proof.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The main argument in the AfD is about the nature (ie primary/secondary and affiliated/independent) of sources. Believe it or not, I really appreciate the good faith effort that was done in finding source, but my comment is not on your effort or you as a contributor. It is on the nature of the source presented, that doesn't adress the reason I opened this AfD, and what makes me say that is written in p.1 of the source. On a side note, "Mine is bigger than yours" comment don't belong in AfD (nor anywhere else on WP, I guess).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - due to lack of significant coverage in independant sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The articles don't explain why the topics are notable. --
  Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete (though merge relevant info to the manual articles). While Pathfinder and other RPG systems may be independent, just because they include the same creature type (a bit of OR to assume its supposed to be the same) doesn't given any type of significant coverage required by the GNG. We are not here to list out every detail of a game system for readers; that's a job much better suited to a wiki. The notability needs to be an out-of-universe facets. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Ghost 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per BOZ. Don't bother with your
  WP:UNCIVIL badgering. CallawayRox (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  per BOZ doesn't explain why the sources would be secondary, independent or significant.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have problems reading and like hearing the sound of your own voice. CallawayRox (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to the appropriate Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Boz's argument falls flat on its face in that Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing - or White Dwarf, or Avalanche Press in the case cited here - are not independent sources in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that discuss the monsters - these are primary sources that simply use the same monster. Between all three of these articles, there is no secondary sources, only primary ones; and it is very, very unlikely that there will be any secondary sources, as these creatures are wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monsters as part of a list of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as as a group they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them to the lists is what should be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if it wasn't discussing the Brownie of D&D then it wouldn't count as a source. If it does discuss it, it's not independent. Could you explain what kind of source you _would_ consider acceptable for this type of thing? And could you distinguish how, say, a baseball player need not be notable outside of baseball but this does? I can sort of see the point, but it does feel a lot like "because I said feel that way" and the same argument could be applied to a ton of things that we accept as notable (actors, authors, etc.) Hobit (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems you're confusing the area in which a topic might be notable with the actual elements that build this notability. D&D creatures don't have to exist outside D&D to be notable, but the sources used to establish notability sure have to be completely independent of D&D (ie not being an official D&D magazine or extension, and not being another game that is just making primary use of a creature). We're only saying D&D creatures must have significant coverage from secondary independent sources, and D&D modules or other games that make primary use of the creature are neither secondary nor independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Folken, I realize that it can be unclear, but that question wasn't addressed to you. I was hoping to hear what The Bushranger had to say. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - If the creatures appearing in the other publications are meant to actually be the same creature, ie they were officially licensed or borrowed from TSR/Wizards, then the sources would not be independent. These would be first party sourcebooks on the creatures. If they are not specifically meant to be the exact same creatures, then they would not fall within the scope of the articles in question as they would not be the D&D specific versions of these creatures, thus the references to them would be invalid. Additionally, whatever the status of the sources being first party or not is, they still fail to establish any sort of notability for these fictional elements. The information contained within the sources pretty much only contain in-universe information, and do nothing to establish any of the creatures having any sort of real world notability. I would not be opposed to a selective merge if others felt that would be appropriate, however. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all First, because I believe that the coverage is sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG, despite the large volumes of text from those who disagree. But most originally, and specifically speaking to Bushranger's and Rorschacma's merge and oppose, is because there is
  no single merge target for these creatures. "Dungeons & Dragons" is at least five separate product lines, and Pathfinder and other D&D-alike games are separate entities entirely. So, since there's no such thing as a list of monsters in fantasy role playing games, there is no merge target for the articles, each of which incorporate content from a half a dozen or so separate games. Note that I just wrote that essay earlier today and this is the first time I've cited it, as some of the recent thoughtful views different than mine prompted some detailed thinking on the matter, unlike much of the recent discussion on the topic which simply kept repeating contested assertions as if saying them again and again would make them more convincing. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don't think that the ability to split content across multiple appropriate pages somehow means an article cannot be merged. The articles are already split into edition, and fortunately each edition
    Ghost 07:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Sure it's possible, just like it's possible to have the same content about a non-notable band member copied into the article of each notable band to which he or she ever belonged... but longstanding consensus is to not do that, and keep the information together in one place, even if it doesn't necessarily meet notability guidelines. Why do you think notability has remained perpetually a guideline rather than a policy like
      WP:V? Because there are exceptions that are logically necessary to make the encyclopedia cover some topics smoothly, and I believe this to be one of them. Oh, and as has been argued above, either Pathfinder is or is not D&D. If it's not D&D, then including Pathfinder monsters in a central list of D&D monsters would be inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • But it's not the same content. Each piece of the article has a place in a notable article, whereas these articles themselves are completely without notability. I don't think it's logical to say that that notability does not apply just because we cannot copy and paste the entirety of the article into another article. The band consensus you refer to is the opposite of this situation, that if two or more people are notable outside of a band, that the band is also notable (also sometimes known as a
        Ghost 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Jclemens, there's a huge flaw in your argument. First you claim in your recommandation that the content is "sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG", then you claim it's a case of
          WP:NSMT, as an exception to the notability guideline. If you feel the need to create an exception to WP:N, then it means you're de facto acknowledging the articles in themselves don't meet WP:GNG and need an exception to survive (this is clearly stated in the essay you wrote: "One well-established exception to the general notability guideline is the issue of when content is not separately notable, but has no single merge target"). So your argument is currently contradictory and that makes it unacceptable, an article can't at the same time meet GNG and need an exception to GNG because it otherwise doesn't meet GNG. For the sake of coherence, can you strike one of your arguments ? As to your second argument (again assuming that's the one you want us to follow), why can't we just have each creature merged to appropriate article and have redirects for each, like Brownie (D&D), Brownie (D&D 3rd), Brownie (Pathfinder)... It is perfectly possible to still have WP:GNG implemented, why this bias towards a denial of WP:GNG instead of just regular editing wich would follow WP:GNG? An exception to a guideline should remain an exception, not an excuse not to follow it that has no grounds.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • • • exactly what type of content from these articles is "mergeable" anyway? i am just seeing trivial crap. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:19, 31 August 2012 (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.