Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ygorl

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Merge/Redirect to Slaad; action to be taken by others. For further decision rationale see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ygorl. JERRY ^talk _contribs 08:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ygorl

)

Fails to meet

WP:NOTABILITY. It is just describing another game character. Delete Metal Head (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Keep There's a 30 year history behind the character in question, spanning books in three editions of D&D, and yes also in a relatively recent platform game. There is plenty of room to improve the article based on that alone. Before trying to delete something, it would be nice if you took things to discussion to suggest improvements, or attempt to make improvements yourself. I mean, the notability tag (as much as I disagree with its unilateral placement in the first place) is new as of this month. There simply hasn't been the time to respond to that and improve the article. This AFD is seriously jumping the gun.Shemeska (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Ygorl appears by name in the 3rd party Tome of Horrors by Necromancer games.Shemeska (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This does not deserve it's own page. It should be with the D&D article. Not on it's own. On it's own, it is just a character. That is not notable.Metal Head (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are suggesting this merge to the main D&D article? That seems odd. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - The character has, as you say, been around for almost 30 years -- plenty of time for it to garner significant coverage and commentary from third-party sources if it were indeed notable. So, where are those sources? --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Slaad per nom. Jfire (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shemeska, especially if he is able to make the improvements he believes can be made. BOZ (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Pending Shemeska. I believe the sources are out there. Hobit (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't show up by the time the AfD closes, recommend the same merge as webwarlock and others. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Out of spite, mostly, and because my arbitrary definition of "notable" can beat up yours. -- Poisonink (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well my definition of "notable" was an honors student at Wiki Middle School so there. :-P —Quasirandom (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shemeska & Poisonink.--Robbstrd (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the
Ssendam, too, frankly. --Ig8887 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Yeah, Paizo had accepted my Slaad Lords article, but Dragon went out of print before they could fit it in. :( Bummer, I tell you! BOZ (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect to
WP:WAF, so there is no encyclopedic content in the article worth keeping.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment OK, now I've seen you throw the "stock character" around so often that we might as well as well call it your "stock response". I really need to ask on this one; are there enough froggy quasi-dieties of entropy and chaos who ride dragons that it has really formed its own archetype yet? With your ever-broadening definition of "stock character", we might as well assume that all fictional characters are stock characters, and therefore it need never be mentioned again. BOZ (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frog like sterotype sounds like a stock character to me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's because you do not even bother to read these articles or any of the source material. Ygorl looks nothing like a frog but rather a "black skeletal humanoid". But if that means "frog" to you then hey, I can't help you. Web Warlock (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is vaguely frog-like in appearance... you know, that makes him exactly like all the other slightly froggy charred skeletal characters out there. It's a long-standing cultural archetype featured in countless books and movies over numerous generations. I mean, there are so many even I get confused. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ygorl is a
notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Gavin: Please quote the first sentence of stock character here in this debate, just so we can be sure you've seen it. Then explain how Toad of Toad Hall matches it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ygorl and Toad are both
Anthropomorphisms, a type of stock character. The difference between them is that Toad of Toad Hall is a lead character, has his own dialogue and is the central to a notable book, whereas Ygorl has no dialogue, and was created for a game guide.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Try again. Please quote the first sentence of stock character here in this debate, just so we can be sure you've seen it. Then explain how Toad of Toad Hall matches it. Don't just assert that X is a stock character because you say so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your inabilty to do the simplest of research tasks boggles my mind. From the Fiend Folio "Ygorl always appears as a skeletal, black, bat-winged humanoid standing about 12 feet tall. He wields a huge scythe in his hands with various runes inscribed on the blade. Ygorl does not possess the alternate form ability of other slaadi, and it is clear that the form he assumes on the Material Plane is not the same one in Limbo." Given that you don't even know what this article is about and make claims for it's deletion based out of ignorance I say your claim is null and void. Web Warlock (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you know that Ygorl has no dialogue because... you've read at least one book that he appeared in, right? Or saw something somewhere that said he's never spoken? Or maybe you've played
Demon Stone, where he was voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan? I haven't played that video game, but generally if there's a voice for a character, one assumes that there's dialogue also. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps if we're going to be talking about stock characters, then some time should be devoted to actually locating sources for *that* article (listed as having no references since November 2006). As is, that article seems like it could have lots of orginal research, possibly dubious claims, and (to me at least) a whiff or two of copyright violation (some of the language sounds like it's straight from a scholarly source, but I have not found anything to back up these feelings as I haven't searched for such sources). In other words, is that a suitable article for deletion? <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third-party coverage. Possibly redirect to a list of deities. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is third party coverage in the "Tome of Horrors" published by Necromancer Games. Several pages on Ygorl (and Ssendam) in fact.Shemeska (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment that sounds like a primary source rather than an independent secondary source to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Having not seen the book myself, I've not idea how you could conclude that for the title of the book. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment looking at [1] I see a sourcebook, containing in-game information on Ygorl and hence a primary source, rather than a discussion of the real-world history or impact of Ygorl, which would be a secondary source. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to
Ygorl are equally or more useful in the Slaad article. Finally, it would be easier to maintain by editors, since much info is necessarily duplicated between the three articles. See also arguments by Ig8887 above, which I fully support. Freederick (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (or merge if there's a more appropriate list-of) -- two sentences about the real-world (identifying creator and appearances) -- are insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I would also accept a merge of this and the
Ssendam article into Slaad. Web Warlock (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Slaad and add any appropriate references to that article (instead of this one, of course). Doing so will make for a more substantial Slaad article as suggested by Freederick. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- One better Slaad article is better than two iffy Slaad and Ygorl articles. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No assertion of real-world notability per
WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
Tally-ho! 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Those references provide only an in-universe perspective absent information on development and critical response. I also do not see an assertion of the character's supposed notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ygorl appeared in more than just one fictional medium and was voiced by a notable actor. Best, --
Tally-ho! 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Once again, that is not notable. He was in a video game. Big whoop. He was voiced by someone important, once again, notability is not inherited. The character, by itself, is non notable. If not deleted, it should be merged with an important article. Undeath (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A character appearing in multiple works of fiction and voiced by a mainstream actor and with verifiable information meets our guidelines and policies. Best, --
Tally-ho! 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If that was true, there would be thousands of articles about minor characters in video games. Sometimes, an actor does multiple voices in a game. One character being voiced by someone important does not assert notability.Undeath (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a large number of articles about characters in video games; I don't know if it's in the thousands, but I have come across many. Best, --
Tally-ho! 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
We do have articles about MAIN CHARACTERS. Minor characters do not need an article. Ygorl was not the main character of that video game. Notability is still not there.Undeath (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might be inclined to agree were this a minor character in but one work of fiction, but due to its appearances in Fiend Folio (1981), Tales of the Outer Planes (1988), Tales From the Infinite Staircase (1998), and Forgotten Realms: Demon Stone (2004), it seems to have cross-media notability. Regards, --
Tally-ho! 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That just tells me that it should be merged with a larger page. Maybe the D&D page itself. (make a section for notable characters) But once again, it only appeared in those other works. It was not the subject of them.Undeath (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to the information being merged into a list of characters and then per the GFDL the article redirected without being deleted; my opinion is that the sourced material should be kept in some capacity, as losing the verifiable information does not improve our project and I do not want any editors who contributed to the article to resent Wikipedia if it's deleted.. Best, --
Tally-ho! 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
People should not resent Wikipedia if their article gets deleted in the first place. For one, this article is not very big nor very well written. The creator of it probably did not spend too much time in making this article. This article should be Merged.Undeath (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did make some attempt to improve it (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. and I encourage others to help out as well so that whether it is merged or kept, what we end up with is better than what we had. Best, --
Tally-ho! 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to Slaad. around for a long time and developed by a notalbe author. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Longevity ≠ notability, and notability is not inherited from a notable author. --EEMIV (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2008 (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.