Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aboleth


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Aboleth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ridiculous article on a ridiculous subject. Luwat (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I now wish to change my reason for deletion: it should be deleted because of non-notability. I would also like to stress that my nomination is entirely in "good faith". Luwat (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As the nominator has now updated the deletion rationale, the person closing the AfD should discard the 3 "keep" votes based on the old version.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At least 2 of the keep voters also objected to the Cusop Dingle's characterization of the references prior to the Nom changing his reason for deletion. Not that closing AFDs are a vote anyways, but don't presume to change other user's positions for them. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I for one am content that the AFD should be closed based on an assessment on all the arguments as they stand at the time of closure. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Significant references are all to game-playing handbooks.  No evidence of significant independent reliable sources.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Correct to "significant" mentions.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination.SPNic (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the nom sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination but since then Cusop Dingle has given a valid policy based reason for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * but the original intention was IDONTLIKE it. Use that to get the AFD tag on (where it can't be removed) and then LATER come up with a reasoning for it?  No, that smells of badfaith to me.  Remove the AFD and ask for the refs to be improved first.  If that can't be done in a month then come back to this.  This looks like a backdoor way to get something deleted. Web Warlock (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We discuss the article as a whole, we are not restricted to discussing the original reason for nomination. It often happens that other reasons emerge during the discussion.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per SPNic; this is one of the most blatant cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I have seen in a while. As for the assertion that none of the references are independent, reread the reference list: the last two entries on the current reference list are not affiliated with TSR/WotC. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, of those two, one [16] mentions the Aboleth and says nothing about them other than mentioning that they fought some humans, and the other [17] is equally uninformative. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention: these are not significant coverage.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the non-paizo source as I can't access it currently due to net nanny issues. WRT Paizo, the publisher has additional entries on the creature, including published materials. The references that are there appear sufficient to support the history cited in the article, but to state that Paizo's coverage of the creature is not significant seems to me to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated that the reference cited is not significant coverage. I made no assertion about any other possible source.  If you know of an independent reliable source with significant coverage, feel free give the details here or add them to the article.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sangrolu - serious bad-faith nomination, "ridiculous" is not a valid reason to delete. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The nominator changed his reason to delete, but I agree with the assertions of those who have argued that we have significant coverage in independent sources. I disagree with Folken de Fanel's disputations thereof, and his attempts to dissuade the closer from discarding anyone's good faith responses. BOZ (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not enough to just "disagree", you have to explain why it would be "significant coverage", otherwise it's just unsubstanciated and unhelpful for the discussion. WP:GNG says the coverage must not be trivial, but that perfectly define the sources brought here, where the name "aboleth" is just mentionned once and never thouroughly discussed. It's all either plot summary or not even about the D&D character. Merely "disagreeing" with that without even bothering to explain why is similar to WP:ILIKEIT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I disagree with you and unless you feel that I could possibly your mind, then I don't need think I need to try to convince you that I am right. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Here's significant coverage in an independent source, i.e. something not published by TSR or WoTC. Here's another decent-sized mention of the subject. —Torchiest talkedits 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any significant coverage, nor even real-life coverage. 1st source is only plot summary, 2nd source doesn't even appear to be related to the subject (the article is about a D&D creature, the book is about one author's creation which shares the name but is otherwise unrelated) and the coverage is anecdotal an best anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks sourced to me. Maybe one or two more, but then the appropriate tag would be to ask for more sources not go directly to deleting it.  I say remove the AFD tag and put in a Ref Improve one (or whatever it is called now). Web Warlock (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is not sourced enough to prove its notability. Per WP:GNG, the article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which it does not have, and which no one here has brought yet.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable subject which fails WP:GNG. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required, but the only sources are either completely dependent of the subjects, or completely trivial and insignificant.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep has been a feature of four incarnations of D&D and many monsters are covered in independent sources. This one is of a sufficient complexity that it will be.covered somewhere....this AfD has caught me on the hop. I suspect it'll involve a paper search...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Being in several editions of a game is not a criterion for notability, and "other stuff exists" and "there must be sources" are not good "keep" arguments. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note- This IP user is canvassing for keep votes. Reyk  YO!  01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Casliber. Regarding the IP, I don't think his messages are necessarily canvassing, since they are phrased neutrally. There was no implication in his remarks on my talk page that he wanted a keep vote. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They most certainly are canvassing, because the IP only contacted people who voted keep last time. Please see WP:VOTESTACKING.  Reyk  YO!  06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still seems like a strange accusation to make when the IP hasn't even !voted here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is a strange attempt to excuse the IP's behavior, because whether it voted or not (who knows? Maybe sockpuppetry is involved) has nothing to do with the definition of vote-stacking.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming, that is, that the IP has indeed not !voted here ... Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was simply trying to appeal to common sense: if the IP itself hasn't voted, then we shouldn't assume that it's deliberately trying to sway the discussion here toward one outcome. The definition of vote-stacking is another matter, and accusations of sock-puppetry should not be made without good evidence. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense says only one thing: if an IP, which has already contributed to the article, shows up and only contacts users who !voted "keep" on another D&D related AfD, then it is canvassing. You have yet to explain how the fact that the IP has not yet voted here would change that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably an IP determined that an article be kept would vote to keep it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or ask people who already voted keep in other D&D related AfDs to come here. I really don't know why you're so intend on defending this IP while this is an obvious case of canvassing. You can't deny it. It's fact. You're going around in circle, whether the IP voted here is not the issue here. canvassing has a definition, having voted in the AfD is not one of the defining criteria.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. The obvious point, however, is that one can't judge what is canvassing and what isn't without understanding the reasons behind someone's actions. The behavior of the IP considered overall suggests that they could be something different to what you claim they are. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever someone may think of the behavior and the intentions behind it, the action and its consequences are still here and you can't deny them. Find excuses for the IP as much as you want, it won't change the fact that this AfD has been tampered with. If this AfD closes as "keep", the issue will be raised at WP:DRV. Yes, we can totally judge "what is canvassing and what isn't", per WP:CAN, which perfectly corresponds to what the IP did. When it'll mention that "if someone hasn't voted in an AfD, it's not canvasing" then I'll agree with you. But you know it doesn't, so arguing about that is pointless. If the only reasoning you can come up with to save the article is an excuse of a disruptive behavior such as canvassing, if that's the only thing you can talk about (not article content, not reliable sourcing), then it just shows that this isn't a good article,  and it reinforces the opinion I have of inclusionists and their methods.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A ridiculous AFD. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there a Wikipedia policy related argument for this !vote? Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant sources outside of TSR/WOTC. This needs independent and significant sourcing not a bunch of D&D players voting keep because they like it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Is your issue the article or "a bunch of D&D players"? Web Warlock (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "This needs independent and significant sourcing" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Then say that only. Otherwise one could easily assume you have a bias. Web Warlock (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge somewhere. Yes, it is (partially) sourced, but it's still a WP:Run-of-the-mill D&D creature that seems to lack any in-depth third-party sources (WP:NOTABILITY) and non-trivial real-world information (WP:WAF, publication info is trivial). Nothing that demands a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 8 April 2012 (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.