Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pech (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 Delete --JForget 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pech (Dungeons & Dragons)
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Article does not mention any source books, but, from memory, they appear in Races of Stone and I doubt very much they have appeared elsewhere, unless it was copied from a book from an earlier edition. In any case, monster has minimal significance, and there is no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not every D&D creature is notable. Very few are, actually. This is no slaad or death knight, so away it goes. (I'm going to copy-paste this into all of the D&D creature AfD's going on right now. Couldn't we have combined them for ease?) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig8887 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable; Ig8887 said it well. There are thousands of these bits of clutter. nb: It is my experience that combining AfDs tends to result in inappropriate keeps, so address them one at a time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - add a little of this to the Pech (mythology) article. Web Warlock (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with that (and not incoincidentally, the reason most of these pages with "(Dungeons & Dragons)" in the title were created) is that mythology-folks don't want their pages cluttered up with pop culture references, and tend to remove that sort of thing from the mythology pages. A disambiguation page would take care of that problem, though. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's understandable, really. Why should the D&D monster get a special mention? These sort of creatures appear in all sorts of fantasy universes. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Either the subject is notable, in which case the article needn't be deleted; or it's not notable, and the mythology page needn't concern itself with it. BreathingMeat (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why does what the mythology-folks want for their pages take precedence over what other editors want? I'm honestly asking. Why, if enough editors feel that the appropriate place for information on a D&D monster is a small mention in the mythology article, does that consensus get overridden with the desires of those who feel they "own" the mythology pages? Is it just because no one wants to get into an edit war over it? --Ig8887 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why include the D&D monster over any other? Such a mention would add nothing to the article; those who know the first thing about D&D would be able to guess there would be stats for it somewhere, those who don't won't care. Perfectly good articles are often ruined by huge arbitary lists of games, books, music videos, TV episodes, radio shows, blogs, films, fantasy universes... that whatever the article's about has appeared in. Either the pop-culture appearances have some significance to the subject, in which case they will have been discussed in third party sources, or they have none, in which case they needn't be mentioned. If you don't want to open the floodgate to include these lists, then why should the D&D incarnation be singled out to be included over all the others? J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fanaticism? Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why include the D&D monster over any other? Such a mention would add nothing to the article; those who know the first thing about D&D would be able to guess there would be stats for it somewhere, those who don't won't care. Perfectly good articles are often ruined by huge arbitary lists of games, books, music videos, TV episodes, radio shows, blogs, films, fantasy universes... that whatever the article's about has appeared in. Either the pop-culture appearances have some significance to the subject, in which case they will have been discussed in third party sources, or they have none, in which case they needn't be mentioned. If you don't want to open the floodgate to include these lists, then why should the D&D incarnation be singled out to be included over all the others? J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's understandable, really. Why should the D&D monster get a special mention? These sort of creatures appear in all sorts of fantasy universes. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can sympathize with the "mythology-folks". It's really a question of gravatas. Real mythology is significant to all humanity, whether individual members appreciate it or not. The various pop-culture entities, and D&D is one of many, are coat-tailing on and corrupting the general understanding of true mythology. This is why such bits get booted from the real articles and when they can't stand as separate articles, they die the AfD-death. Next. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with that (and not incoincidentally, the reason most of these pages with "(Dungeons & Dragons)" in the title were created) is that mythology-folks don't want their pages cluttered up with pop culture references, and tend to remove that sort of thing from the mythology pages. A disambiguation page would take care of that problem, though. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - A Dungeons & Dragons Pech named Clacker plays a very large role in the book Exodus by R. A. Salvatore. Do novels in Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings count as secondary sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.142.155 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (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.
