Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin


 * 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   redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. If there is anything to merge, that can be done from the article history.  Sandstein  05:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyclopskin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No independent evidence of notability; all references come from the publisher or a Monster Manual, which (presumably) lists everything one might find in this game. An original redirect was turned into an article; my revert thereof was accompanied by a rather terse injunction to take this to AfD, and here we are. This minor character has generated no interest outside of said manual and company publications--even a Google Search agrees with that, and the paucity of those results makes me wonder if a redirect is even worth it, but I'll settle for one. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I did suggest to Drmies that he should nominate the article for deletion if he considers the subject non-notable, I don't actually think it should be deleted if the Cyclopskin is indeed non-notable - just returned to being a redirect. I'm not quite sure how that is different from a merge. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Drmies did return it to a redirect at first, maybe you shouldn't have restored the article, then.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment has no bearing upon whether the article should be deleted or not. Clearly it shouldn't, because it makes a perfectly acceptable redirect. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It creates unneccessary bureaucracy and drama to revert the redirect telling Drmies to take this to AfD, and then immediately saying deletion is unnecessary because it "makes a perfectly acceptable redirect". That's what you were called upon. – sgeureka t•c 06:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what I was trying to achieve. I doubt that the subject is notable, but I'm not sure - which is why it's helpful to have an AfD, so that the issue of notability can be properly addressed. I don't see any "drama" here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as per BOZ. I cannot see how any of these minor D&D monster articles pass GNG, on the other hand if we are going to have lists we might as well merge into them. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, none of them do pass GNG that I've seen. I looked at the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters earlier and followed twenty links at random.  Not one of them had an independent source and I doubt any of them do.  Someone has apparently decided that they are going to preserve the D&D monster pantheon her for posterity, notability guidelines be damned (or more likely because they don't understand them or their purpose).   But it's worse than just a notability issue, I'm afraid - there's a lot of outright copyvio going on - since almost all of these articles (inappropriately) seem to use source artwork and replicate the format (minus the game statistics) of the "monster manuals" they cite, they are virtually recreations of them.  From what I've gathered from other AfD's and user pages, there's a lot of acrimony and short fuses associated with these AfD's, which seems unnecessary since (if the others are all like this one and those that I've looked into) the results should be pretty straightforward.  Apologies to those who think this digression is not entirely germaine to the present AfD, but if these articles are going to be a persistent thorn, it seems like we should discuss an RfC to draw more community attention and determine which content should go, what should stay and in what form. Snow (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, there are hundreds of non-notable and problematic monster articles like this one, and we just can't have AfDs for each of them.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think that an AfD for each is exactly what will have to be done -- I just don't see any procedural way around it. But a large RfC where issues concerning non-independent sources are spelled out and codified with particular reference to these types of articles will at least give editors who have to do the nominating a place to point to so they don't have to make the same arguments ad nauseum.  Unfortunately, these articles are so simple that they can be put up at a rate many times faster than it takes to remove them via AfD, so that means also convincing ArbCom to topic ban users who continue to place the same type of article repeatedly in violation of the same policies; that part in particular will probably not be easy.   The best solution would be if the result of the RfC was so overwhelming that a few admins were invested with the authority to just go through and delete all of the most blatant offenders, but I just don't see that happening period.  On a side note, I think "hundreds" undersells the issue: based on the impressionistic observations I made yesterday, I'd be surprised if there was less than a thousand D&D articles that meet all of the following three criteria: lack any independent sourcing,  have copyright violations, and talk about the subject in a completely in-universe manner.  Meanwhile, the Cleanup page for the D&D Wikiproject lists the number of pages needing improved references as "49" and hasn't been updated in years.  But my taking up space to talk about this here in this AfD is getting excessive, so I'll leave it there for now. Snow (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GNG in that no significant coverage in independent secondary sources can be found. And merge if there is consensus for it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, it makes a perfectly good redirect - there is no case for deletion here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Failing GNG is a good enough reason to delete. I even state that if there is enough support for it a redirect can be done. Your comment is gratuitously offensive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Folken, if you think my calling your comment "nonsense" was an unacceptable personal attack, I challenge you to go right ahead and report me for it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're both right--Folken re: GNG and deletion (really, a case of "duh") and Polisher in that "nonsense" is not a personal attack. Please let's act like adults and not cry for mommy immediately. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, as per suggestions above. The subject has no independent sources and no contextual significance outside the game to establish notability under WP:GNG, but cases like these are clearly what the catch-all D&D pages are for (and their general notability/usefulness have presumably been established). Snow (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect per above and for being a plausible search term. – sgeureka t•c 06:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. Fictional element of limited notability, failing WP:GNG. Article is scarcely a stub, probably not enough content to worry about merging. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. There is absolutely no indication of notability, and no independent sources.  There's nothing here that's worth merging, so a simple redirect is sufficient.  Quite frankly, I can't understand why the redirect was reverted to begin with.  Rorshacma (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. This doesn't belong at AfD as others have noted above. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 2 July 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.