Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)


 * 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. I've redirected the page and retained the history for use in merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article doesn't explain why it would be notable. Also, a former edit summary says "redirect no notability per afd consensus", but I can't find any AfD, or at least no AfD template on a previous revision of this page.

Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures has lots of similar articles about various creatures. I'm not sure if those really are notable either. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Even failing that, a merge to one of the creature list articles is preferable per WP:ATD, so the nomination lacks any policy-based rationale.  In fact, the previous edit summary attempting the redirect is itself misleadingly inaccurate: there has not been a previous AfD on this topic. Jclemens (talk)
 * But there's no significant coverage (the other required part of GNG); being listed as a monster in another game system is not that. --M ASEM (t) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what has been asserted, but I disagree. Each separate game that goes by the name of "Dungeons and Dragons"--and those that do not, but choose to emulate the play style and mosters--is independent of the others, in that they have separate editorial teams, publishers, and/or game mechanics. While it's possible to merge these to a D&D game system article, the fact is that this is a fictional element that has verifiably appeared in multiple, independent, notable games. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But there's no secondary coverage. Just because it exists and in multiple systems is not a measure of notability. All parts of the GNG have to be met. --M ASEM (t) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. Use in a non-monster-manual, such as an adventure, is a secondary source usage for any creature.  If they were published by the same company, that would be a non-independent secondary source.  Likewise, monster-manual-like references from other companies are independent primary sources, and adventures from other companies are independent secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, game modules are primary sources; straight-up inclusion of the monster within the module as a random encounter or a specific encounter does not provide any transformative information about the monster, so they remain primary sources. This would be equivalent to a publicly available phone directory as a source for a person - it is all basic fundamental data and therefore primary. Perhaps, and I would say this is exceptional because I certainly don't recall seeing such, but if there's a place where the module designer writes some of his design philosophy or influence on creating the module and goes into detail about wanting to expand the creatures, that would be secondary, but again, I've never seen that in a module. But even if you want to consider it secondary, we're still looking for significant coverage. If all that can be said is "Ant lions appear as random encounters in (game module)", that's nowhere close to significant coverage.  This article, like most of the other D&D monster articles, are trying to justify notability by name dropping regardless of the source, but notability doesn't work that way. --M ASEM  (t) 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the "Tome of Horrors" from Necromancer Games and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from Paizo Publishing are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. As Jclemens points out, this article was previously redirected based on the presumption that one AFD can determine the fate of other articles, and this article was never at AFD previously. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that most of the content from the article was merged into the list yesterday  I think the reasonable thing to do here is to close as a merge. BOZ (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * delete - not only is this not notable in the real world, it is not notable within the fictional game world. the sources are all primary sources discussing the critter only via "in world" game stat perspectives. there is for this article NO independent coverage. As has been presented at multiple other AfD's - the Paizo and Necromancer sources are neither truly "independent" nor actually discussing the topic of the article the: D&D Ant Lion. they are merely source books with game stats for pseudo-D&D game play and therefore their content is about pseudo-D&D ant lions for which original research is required to make the claims. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So here, you're arguing that they're not independent, because they rely on the Open Game License, but on the article, you're arguing that citing such connections is WP:OR because there's no proof of connectedness. You're arguing out both sides of your mouth, here. Which argument do you want to keep: independence or lack of OR?  They cannot both be true, and by advancing both, you are wikilawyering and demonstrating a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.  Pick one argument, and drop the contradictory one: which do you want to keep? Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I might be mistaken, but what I think he's trying to say is that the sources are either sourcebooks for D&D and therefore not independent of D&D, or they are not sourcebooks for D&D, and therefore not about the topic; because either way these books are describing a creature within its own game system, and not independent of that game system. If it is D&D system then it's not independent of D&D, if it's not a D&D system then it's not about a D&D creature, but rather a different system entirely; neither scenario gives any notability to the D&D creature's article. - SudoGhost 22:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yes SudoGhost is correct. Thanks for clarifying. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (merging what can be to the monster list articles) - While it's possible to say the appearance of the creatures in other RPG systems are independent sources, that does not quality as significant secondary coverage. We need out-of-universe discussion of these creatures, and that is not apparant nor does google give anything hopeful to meet that. --M ASEM  (t) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - A sourcebook is a book detailing the rules of a tabletop game, the sourcebooks are the game. Sourcebooks are not independent sources per WP:RSN, and that's all the article has.  Sourcebooks are not and will never be independent sources for the game they are written for, that goes against the most basic fundamental definition of independence; saying a sourcebook is independent of a creature in that sourcebook for would be like saying a video game is an independent source for a creature in the video game.  Are these sourcebooks independent of each other?  Maybe.  Are they independent of the game they are written for?  Never.  Because of this, the article has zero independent third-party sources and no notability of any kind. - SudoGhost 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Unlike with some of the others, I can't find any sources outside of the game books for this creature. —Torchiest talkedits 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's already a disambiguated title, a redirect doesn't make sense ("ant lion" is a search term; "ant lion (dungeons & dragons)" is not.) Merging beforehand makes sense. --M ASEM (t) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Yes,
 * merge with list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters in that case. —Torchiest talkedits 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor addendum: I think we normally redirect rather than delete when merging, to preserve contributor histories per WP:MAD. —Torchiest talkedits 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (merge relevant content per Masem) Fails WP:GNG, the article doesn't have "significant content from multiple secondary independent sources". Sourcebooks like Tome of Horrors are affiliated to D&D ("this product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®") they provide original content for the game and don't contain analytic or evaluative claims. They are the game and thus primary sources and cannot grant notability. Other RPGs like Pathfinder are primary source on themselves, thus when they deal with a creature they are not independent from it, neither is what they to the article. Besides, if they are different games than D&D, they're not dealing with the D&D creature, but with they own version. As they do not provide any commentary on D&D version vs their own, they don't provide analytic or evaluative comment (and if they did, these wouldn't be editorially or financially independent comments).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: for those not familiar with the publishing history and licencing relationship of the games referenced, there is an overview at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing are not independent sources in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that discuss the monsters - these are primary sources that simply use the same monster. There are no secondary sources, only primary ones, in the article, and it is very, very unlikely that there will be any secondary sources, as this creature is wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monster as part of a list of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as as a group they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them it the list is what should be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the discussion between TheRedPenOfDoom and SudoGhost above. Either the sources from Necromancer and Paizo are sourcebooks for D&D, and thus not independent sources, or they are not related to D&D and therefore the creature described in them is not what the article is about.  Either way, the sources are not usable.  Additionally, none of the sources show any sign of real world notability, containing only in-universe information.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * merge to Antlion. I suspect there is other pop culture material too.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * can you clarify what content you see in this article as "mergable"? its essentially the same reason why this fails as a stand alone article - because all that you could merge to the target would be claims that the antlion was a monster in a game based on the primary sources showing that, yes, it was on the page. there is no third party analysis or content explaining how the appearance was important in the world of fantasy gaming or how the fantasy game version differed or was similar to the real critter - nothing but trivial "See here lookie - it sez 'ant lion' here in this game book!". --  The Red Pen of Doom  16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree secondary sources are essential for an article's standalone existence. This does not preclude segments of articles having some primary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are cases and information where primary sourcing is OK. however, "In popular culture" sections are meaningless non-encyclopedic trivia if they are merely lists of "i seen it here an i seen it here an i seen it here". They need to be encyclopedic content of analysis and commentary giving the reader a why  and primary sourcing cannot provide the why/context.--  The Red Pen of Doom  00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends - if it is a story then yes it is hard to provide analysis. However, D&D rulebooks do sometimes talk about out-of-universe rationales etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * if the sources do contain that content, it would not be a merge as none of that content has been included in the article being discussed here. -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is your opinion so let's leave it to the closer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * please, i am genuinely curious as to what what you consider "out-of-universe rationales etc." as existing in this article to be considered for merging.-- The Red Pen of Doom  06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stwong Dewete as game trivia not covered in reliable independent sources. Specifically opposed to any merge; antlion does not deserve this and majik eight-ball sez it's already covered sufficiently in the sprawling lists of game critters. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge plainly a redirect is appropriate as a long-existing article there is no reason to break any external links. And sourcing is certainly enough for that... Hobit (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theo polisme  00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - Straight-up fancruft. Primary sources such as modules and monster manuals prove that it exists, not that it is notable. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But "fancruft" is not a reason per WP:CRUFT. Web Warlock (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete there are some D&D monsters that are genuinely notable (Beholders come to mind) but this ain't one of them. I've put a mention of this in antlion, where there's already a culture section, so a redirect there would be okay too. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note The article has been changed since initially nominated for deletion, most recently by me with the addition of multiple sources of admittedly disputable value. Still, the above !votes hinge on sourcing concerns, which have been moved, again an admittedly disputable amount, at this point in the deletion discussion. Those above !voters skeptical of sourcing should be sure to update their !votes accordingly so as to make sure they reflect on the most current version of the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You added a few sources, but none of them give any notability to the article, and only one of them is a reliable source in any way. The first one, the only one that could be argued is a reliable source, is a website about miniatures.  However, the first cited page doesn't seem to mention anything about the article's subject at all, and the second cited page on this reference only lists the name "ant lion", no other detail is given, that's far from significant coverage. The next reference is someone's personal website with their personal reasoning, that's not a reliable source.  The next two are wordpress blogs, which are in no way reliable sources. - SudoGhost 04:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think enough material has been added to this one now that a merge to the list makes more sense than a delete. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, when you remove the content that, as pointed out by SudoGhost is not supported by reliable sources, what exactly are you proposing to merge? -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with SudoGhost. None of these sources contribute to the notability of the subject at all, and all but one of them are completely unreliable.  And as mentioned, the one that could potentially be considered a reliable source does nothing except state the creature's name, which is about the most blatant example of trivial coverage possible.  I see no strong argument to change my above vote.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFPUB, the material added may or may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability sufficient for an independent article, but the sources are certainly enough to meet WP:V for the (uncontested, obviously) facts attributed to them. Thus, WP:ATD prefers a merge in such a case, such that there is no policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What hogwash. There is now ZERO reason to Assume anything but Badfaith on your part in these discussions.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and is this supposed to be some sort of change in how you've treated my contributions--or the contributions of anyone else who disagrees with you on these topics, for that matter? Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything at WP:SELFPUB that has any relevance to the situation at hand. None of the sources that were added are by "established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", nor would they be considered to be sources of material on themselves.  As far as I can see, those are the only exceptions where questionable sources are considered to be even remotely useful.  In fact, the only thing that WP:SELFPUB tells us that is actually applicable to this discussion is that those questionable and self-published sources are not, in fact, usable for any sort of verifiability.Rorshacma (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * SELFPUB's by experts are reliable sources--read the (admittedly nuanced) wording a bit more carefully. Run-of-the-mill SELFPUBs are better than no references for uncontested facts.  In this case, the two wordpress blogs critical of the Ant Lion as a monster are sources for their own opinions, not someone else's, and thus are applicable sources for those opinions under the no-third-party rule. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What happened to "usually in articles about themselves or their activities" ? I didn't notice "Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)" was actually about two wordpress blogs. Besides, "themselves" /= "their opinion". This doesn't seem to be the kind of clear-cut case where SELFPUBS are acceptable, but rather undue weight given to trivial opinions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Self publications are reliable sources if they are written by established experts in the field, as I quoted in my above comment. None of the sources even come close to fulfilling the requirements that are described in that policy.  And I believe you are grossly misinterpreting what the policy is describing when it talks about self published sources on themselves.  The only way that would even begin to be applicable in this article is if one of those blogs was actually written by an Ant lion from D&D, which I hope we all agree probably isn't going to be the case.  And no, selfpubs are not better than nothing.  The policy in question specifically says that self published material that do not meet the very, very narrow criteria of reliability can not be used to establish verifiability.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * SPS are acceptable by non-experts in various circumstances. Fictional elements can't write about themselves: if there is any gross misrepresentation of policy in this discussion, it would be that such was necessary.  In this case, the blog post authors are reliable sources for their own opinions, about Ant Lion, and since Ant Lion is a fictional element, it is not a third party for purposes of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * oh fergawds sake NO - WE DO NOT USE RANDOM BLOGGERS OPINIONS. --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fictional elements can not write about themselves, which means that part of the policy does not apply to them. Not that there's some bizarre loophole that because a non-entity can't write about itself, some random blooger can be considered to be a reliable, non-expert source.  No where in the policy does it say anything that could even be remotely interpreted to mean what you are trying to push here.  This article is not about the blogs or their activities, so why would the fact that they can be used as sources for themselves even matter?  The fact that you can prove that a blogger has an opinion on a fictional creature does not somehow confer anything reliable to the creature.  Based on the policy on verifiability, which you yourself brought up here, there's only two situations where self published sources can be considered reliable.  Either the source is from an established expert in the field, or the source being used was written by the subject of the article.  The first is very clearly not the case, and the second is a situation that is not possible for the subject of this article.  I honestly do not understand why you are so intent on pushing this bizarre train of logic.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No bizarre train of logic here, just a detailed exposition of our sourcing policy. Both bloggers cited have high enough Google page rank to make them show up early on in the search results, because they have commented extensively on multiple D&D related topics, hence my choosing them as appropriate sources.  TRPOD, you completely fail to advance any argument, which begs the question... what do you possibly hope to contribute by your continued uncivil posting?  Rorshacma, there was no attempt by me to paint the sources as reliable; my reference to SELFPUB referenced the circumstances under which non-reliable sources could be considered sufficient for verifiability.  Your objections are off-target, because they're simply not addressing what I was advocating. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And as WP:SELFPUB clearly states (and as Rorshacma and I explained if there was need to), the provision for non-reliable sources to be used is only in case of "articles about themselves", provided "it does not involve claims about third parties". Since Ant lion as a fictional monster is not a blog (I hope we can agree on that), this article is not about the blog and Ant lion is a third party to the blog, thus any review/opinion on a fictional monster is a "claim about third parties", so unreliable blog reviews on D&D monsters cannot be satisfyingly used in the article Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons). Any claim of the contrary would mean Ant lion would be first party to the blog and I don't see how this could be possible, unless maybe if the author had created Ant Lion and was using it as an alternate persona to write his blog, which I don't believe is the case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete in spite of the additions. Again, there isn't really much reliable content to merge other than a few mentions that, yes, this monster is from D&D, and it did appear in games X, Y, and Z. I wouldn't object to someone userfying if they wanted to re-use the sources in another (hopefully notable) article or list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. This keeps the link and edit history intact while sending people to the appropriate article. Web Warlock (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since a couple of people have mentioned this, I just wanted to point out that preserving the link really doesn't seem like it would be that big of a priority to warrant not deleting. The only actual place in article space that actually links here is the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters itself, and it wouldn't be a problem at all to simply de-link that mention of it, like many of the other other monsters on the list.  The vast majority of the other pages that link to this article are simply various watch lists, logs, and other things that relate directly to this AFD, which would become moot once this AFD is closed.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * additional comment no one has yet identified what content is suitable for merging. Can you specify? -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything I had in mind was merged earlier today. —Torchiest talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 17:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Voila: BOZ (talk) 18:03, 11 September 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.