Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus (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 no consensus. 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 offers no definitive result. Xoloz 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Nonnotable example of a fictional demon. Fails to have any substantial real-world impact, reported in reliable sources. Eyrian 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - trivial gamecruft. IPSOS (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - seems like a reasonable article on a long standing D&D monster with classical roots. Possibly a merger should be considered with a broader subject (Succubi in RPGs, perhaps?) if such a thing exists. Artw 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • comment The_succubus_in_fiction might be a candidater for a merger, though Eyrian recently blanked that and replaced it with a redirect. Artw 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Redirecting an article is hardly "blanking". --Eyrian 21:25, 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)
  • And how do you derive that significance? Please read WP:NOTE. --Eyrian 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Where? I don't believe it. --Eyrian 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've seen what you consider to be likely or unlikely to have independent material out there and am concerned that you have jumped to conclusions in the past. The world of published material really is quite huge. No specific material jumps to mind straightaway but on the balance of what I know about the game, the creature and other material I am pretty sure there will be something. A more constructive way to improve wikipedia is by using notability tags rather than jumping to AfD. This approach is proving disruptive and upsetting to many users and will ultimately undermine WPs growth.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't found it disruptive at all. All of Wikipedia's good articles continue humming along just fine. I know these games well enough, and I'm equally certain that there is nothing of importance. The succubus is a minor monster in D&D, quite aside form the signature few that it developed and popularised. --Eyrian 22:55, 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 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here's one way to add an outside source, and perhaps make the D&D succubus article at least slightly more notable. Wasn't there at least one major succubus character in the Planescape computer game? Maybe someone would want to add something about that to the article, if I'm remembering correctly. I doubt it will satisfy the editor seeking deletion, but what the hey. 24.136.11.57 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Her name is Fall-From-Grace. You can read about her here. Turlo Lomon 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I disagree with the reason for nomination. Addition reasons per Boz. Turlo Lomon 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd this is mentioned in a number of non Wizards sources, probably including the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Guildhouse Games made a campaign called "The Succubus Bride." It's pretty significant as far as tabletop gaming monsters are concerned. Sci girl 08:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't about the general article about the demon. This is about the specific Dungeons and Dragons incarnation, which simply doesn't have such evidence. --Eyrian 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The adventure I mentioned is intended for use with the Dungeons and Dragons core rulebook. It seems self-defeating to exclude non-Wizards sources from this discussion because they aren't Dungeons and Dragons branded, but demand independent sources.Sci girl 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That would be true if we were talking about a different article, but this is about specifically the Dungeons and Dragons incarnation of the Succubus. Therefore, a source must explicitly refer to that particular game. And yes, it's highly unlikely that such a source exists. That's why this article should be deleted. --Eyrian 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't understand how a campaign stating "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" doesn't explicitly refer to Dungeons and Dragons. Sci girl 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
          • No, no. The campaign module, being published by WotC, is not an independent source.The Succubus Bride may or may not refer to the D&D succubus, which I find highly unlikely unless it's licensed by WotC. --Eyrian 04:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
            • How can it be both not independent and not refer to Dungeons and Dragons? As I stated before, it is published by Guildhouse Games, not by Wizards of the Coast; however it is explicitly intended for use with the three core rulebooks. I believe the succubus in it is from the Monster Manual, maybe advanced with a few character levels. I can check that. Sci girl 04:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Oh, I'm sorry, I was confused; I thought you were referring to separate products. --Eyrian 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest that this discussion be linked to the global nomination of D&D creatures higher up the page. Either all go, or they need to be considered on merits. -- Simon Cursitor 13:32, 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)
  • Delete/transwiki WP is not a game guide and no notability is established from independent reliable sources. Barrage of votes from a wikiproject should not be a reason to keep an article failing WP:N Corpx 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep canonical d&d creature. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 25 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.