Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charon (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 to Yugoloth. Both outcomes here aren't entirely compelling/convincing however I would more or less say the merges had the strongest arguement here, I have no objections to the merge target being changed however it should probably be discussed on the tp first, Anyway consensus is to merge. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Charon (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Yugoloth. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep a mythology-derivative fictional element, there are already two independent RS's in the article discussing Charon. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As said before, being one of hundreds or possibly even thousands of characters directly imported under an open license is not a measure of notability. You're pretty much trying to say every generic D&D monster is notable. I'd also hesitate to truly call them independent due to that liscense anyway. TTN (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You do know who Charon (mythology) is, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And that has to do with what? If you have sources discussing how the D&D rendition has influenced the mythological figure in recent pop culture, great, you'll have brought something useful to the discussion for once. If not, the mythology is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Other way 'round, TTN. Other way 'round. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep conflating the character with the mythology. Fictional characters, no matter how directly or loosely based on a real world topic, are their own entities within the fiction from which they originate. Discussion of those topics belongs solely in articles based upon that fiction. What belongs in the real world topic's article is a section including examples of such fictionalized versions in a properly weighted manner. If there is no discussion on the fictional renditions impact on the real world topic, the status of the real world topic is entirely irrelevant. TTN (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These keep arguments are not very convincing. Are there actual reliable sources that discuss this creature outside of in-universe game manuals?  If not, I'm thinking it should be merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The arguments have been made elsewhere, more thoroughly, but when you have a 'borrowed' fictional element that clearly existed before D&D adopted/borrowed/instantiated/adapted it, then you have a complex relationship: When the fictional element is then re-re-used after D&D has, and is influenced by the D&D descriptions thereof, what does that affect?  The notability of the original mythological element, or that of the derivative fictional element?  Does it need to mention D&D in order for it to count?  I contend not.
 * Further, there is a further element akin to WP:MUSICBIO point 6: we often keep NN things because there are two merge targets--do we upmerge what's here to a D&D page, or to the page for Charon the fictional boatman? Either is unsatisfactory. Thus, a separate article remains a good idea even if it does not currently demonstrate meeting the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per NinjaRobotPirate. I am puzzled by these keep arguments; they do not seem to have much to do with any Wikipedia policy/guideline. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per NinjaRobotPirate. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Yugoloth. Keep arguments seem to boil down to WP:ITEXISTS, and I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources – ie, not game manuals.  We would need out-of-universe details about the creation of the character, discussion of its place in popular culture, and how it influenced the creation of spinoff monsters/characters.  Stuff like this is very easy to find for Vecna, Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), and Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons), for example.  You could probably write an entire GA about how D&D influenced the portrayal of elves, dwarves, and orcs in every work of high fantasy since 1980.  If all we've got for this are the fact that this character appeared in a few game manuals, it's not notable enough for its own article.  D&D is a popular subject in the press, and the truly notable characters don't need to strain to establish notability.  All I see on Google Books are novels and game manuals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you completely miss the fact that, unlike all three of the things you've cited, Charon existed in Greek mythology millennia before D&D? Why would you choose to merge to Yugoloth rather than Charon (mythology)? Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2016 (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.