Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulette


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bulette

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be a non-notable DnD monster. No sources outside Dragon magazine, which is owned by the same company as DnD, so the source is not independent of the subject, and the primary sources of the monster manuals. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, where it's mentioned.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  11:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - where was the discussion to delete this? There is nothing on the talk page to indicate that this page should be deleted. Let's have a discussion first and see if any sources can be turned up.  I have turned up 100s of sources in the past (check my logs) so they are there, I just don't have to time to find them all by the end of the week.  Web Warlock (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - iconic D&D monster which has appeared prominently in every edition of the game all the way back to the original 1974 edition, to current fourth edition which began in 2008 (although Basic D&D somehow missed out). I trust Webwarlock's judgement that sources can be found, and agree that discussion should have happened rather than taking it straight to AFD. This one is particularly notable in that nearly all early D&D creatures were inspired by mythology and literature, while this one was an original created by Gygax. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Jclemens findings on the blink dog AFD, it's likely that there are also some hits for the bulette on Google Books (although I'm susprised at how much filtering I had to do - never realized Bulette was a last name!) BOZ (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am confident that Web Warlock will be successful in RSing this article. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ. I considered the appropriateness of a merge, but note that there is RS'ed information that would be lost in a redirect or merge per S Marshall's recommendation.  The "creature" has appeared in multiple fictional works of a huge franchise spanning three decades, thus accumulating the references it has and meriting its own article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that D&D animals are noteworthy and merit their own entry. It might be one thing if the articles could show real world outside significance, but I this is fancruft at the core.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is WP:CRUFTCRUFT, not an argument founded in policy or guidelines. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added reference to the Bulette's occurrence in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, from Paizo Publishing (not TSR and not WotC). &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- after looking at the references, I am just not seeing substantial coverage in independent sources. Reyk  YO!  19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for how Paizo, Mapventures, Tricky Owlbear Publishing or Joseph Wu Origami Inc. are affiliated with WotC or TSR? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Paizo source is a verbatim copy of stats from the rule books, a photograph of a folded up piece of paper cannot be regarded as substatial covergare by any stretch of the imagination, and the other two seem to be fan created material. I still see no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk  YO!  22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the Paizo source's stats are a verbatim copy of anything (I'd like to be shown what), it does not just have stats, but extensive text describing what a bulette is; that is, it's an independent source describing the fictional creature and its behavior. I don't know if Joseph Wu is reliable, but an (apparently professional) artist choosing to make a sculpture of a fictional creature (your dismissal of origami as "a folded up piece of paper" is really very rude and tasteless, and I wouldn't care to bet that that sculpture took less time and effort to create than the average newspaper article), which he labels by name, seems to me to demonstrate that the fictional creature is relevant outside its native context.  The other two being "fan created material" seems a stretch given that they're demonstrably products offered for sale; when you start selling your material, this generally takes you out of "fan" into "pro". &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Bulette is not notable even within the context of the D&D Universe. Nutiketaiel(talk) 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interpreting the word "notable" differently than how it is used in the Wikipedia context.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Original concern has been addressed.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per BOZ. Unlike many of the monsters in the first editions of D&D that were drawn from legend (goblins, dragons, werewolves, sphinxes), or prehistory (dinosaurs, mastodons), the bulette is an original creation that has been updated for every subsequent edition.Guinness323 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep I'm less sure about blink dog, but in this case there do appear to be reasonable 3rd party sources. Paizo (post-Dragon contract), is certainly independent.  The Enworld interview is too. I'm less sure of the value of the others for WP:N, but they are reasonable sources, meeting WP:V. Hobit (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that this is effectively a second nomination, as there was a previous nom for Bullette with the result keep and move. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "move" had a lot to do with the fact that the original title was a misspelling. :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Basically, it could have been deleted at that point, and typo correction was opted for instead. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)r
 * LOL - Oh, how the flying fickle finger of fate goes. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had known about such a nomination, I likely wouldn't have nom'd it in the first place. When a decision is made at an AfD, a template is usually left on the talk page of the article referring to said AfD, with a note on when it happened, a link to the AfD, and what was decided.  There was no such link at the talk page, hence the nomination.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. BOZ (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong article. I was thinking of Blink dog.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:00, 26 April 2010 (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.