Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep Especially in light of the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures, it seems there are reasonable disagreements regarding the encyclopedic notability of these creatures. As the article is sourced, policy does not demand its deletion, and the discussion below favors retaining the article for the moment. Xoloz 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)
Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nonnotable fictional monster. Sole sources are monstrous manual entries, with no independent references. Eyrian 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • keep - see my rationale at Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons). Artw 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Significant creature within the D&D game, based on creature from mythology, that has been around from the start. BOZ 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep--Per Boz.--Robbstrd 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because you are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons does not mean that D&D-related articles are not notable. Clearly people who have zero amount of fame or are only famous in their neighborhoods are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles and a seemingly unlimited amount of space; that's what user pages are for. Fan fiction is also usually not considered notable. These articles, however, are notable. There are hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps even millions, who are interested in Dungeons & Dragons. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of keeping or deleting these articles.

    Advantages of keeping: These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games); these articles have helpful, interesting, and detailed background information for those wishing to know more about the creatures; and the casual person browsing Wikipedia who knows nothing of the subject but wants to can easily learn by reading these articles or by simply scanning the first paragraph (for example, I was interested in the Star Wars Expanded Universe but knew absolutely nothing about it, so I read various articles that some editors are want to call "not notable" or "fancruft" and quickly became quite educated on the subject).

    Disadvantages of keeping: It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth by an infinitesimal amount, or perhaps the subjects of these creature articles might feel offended by how they are represented in the articles and sue for libel. Also, perhaps some religious zealots might think these articles are blasphemy.

    Advantages of deleting: Are there any? Perhaps appeasing editors who like to delete things or have a grudge against fiction, or perhaps to follow a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability or WP:FICT. But how will that benefit Wikipedia?

    Disadvantages of deleting: Basically, people will be deprived of everything I mentioned in "Advantages of keeping."

    Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (copied from larger debate) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to a D&D Wiki. In-dept coverage of a unit in a game belongs there Corpx 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kind of weak keep - BOZ says it fairly well for me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if we're going to be cataloging D&D creatures there's no reason to specifically eliminate this fairly popular one. --Hanging Jack 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The same arguments made for the mass nomination apply here, shouldn't there be some form of double jeopardy against this kind of vexatious nomination?KTo288 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - In fairness to the nom, double jeopordy wouldn't apply, since this was first listed on the 21st of August. Looks like there was an error with the nomination, and a bot fixed it - so it now appears on the 28th, after the other mass moninaton for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures was closed. No bad faith involved. That being said, see below. ◄Zahakiel► 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, slap my own hand and repeat 'I must assume good faith' a hundred times.KTo288 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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.