Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Displacer beast


 * 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 Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. It's up to editors to change the redirect target or to merge any content from history. There's consensus to not keep this, but no consensus as to where to redirect or merge this to. So that's up to the editorial process to figure out.  Sandstein  13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Displacer beast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to establish notability. The only current reception source is a trivial listicle. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The information in reliable, secondary sources is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. There is the "top ten" style list currently included, and then brief entries in a couple of books that do nothing but describe the creature as it exists in-game.  There is nothing that would establish any kind of real world notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not inherited, so it really does not matter how notable, nor how many millions of people play D&D. The individual elements of the game are not automatically notable, themselves, and need to clear the WP:GNG on their own merits (i.e., having sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources).  Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Notability is not inherited" really is a completely irrelevant comment in relation to this discussion (but a very popular one among those who love to get articles deleted, I've noticed). Nobody is claiming it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is not what you were arguing with your claim that "A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording", then I'm not actually sure what rationale you are using to argue to preserve the material, as WP:ITSNOTABLE is also not a valid argument. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion. As are most comments at AfD. Remember, we don't have rules on Wikipedia. Something that is too often forgotten by those whose primary purpose and source of enjoyment here is to delete others' work, I've found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Insinuating that people who do thankless AfD's because they somehow love deleting people's work is ridiculous. Mostly because it's not "deleted". That work can always be transwikied if it's something totally unique and helpful to fans. I go to fan wikis all the time for info on various franchises and media. Though usually it already exists off wiki in superior detail.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it really? I've been here a long time and I've actually seen evidence (on user talkpages) that some editors do indeed celebrate the deletion of articles and see it as one of their main purposes for being here and their main source of enjoyment while they are here. So no, I'm sorry to say I do not believe it's ridiculous at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the sources are really independent enough of the topic for this to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't support a redirect, either - the proposed redirect location is to a WP:GAMEGUIDE which probably also needs to be deleted. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear SportingFlyer, I have a different opinion about the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, but would you consider changing your mind about deletion of displacer beast if the target was Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons instead? That would in my opinion be just as valid a merge target. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That article also appears to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE. 07:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How so, as that article is mostly based on independent secondary sources, and mostly contains meta-information rather than plot-summary-like information? Daranios (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable monstercruft that fails GNG. As said above, already exists on the Forgotten Realms wiki in superior detail.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Two secondary sources are used in the article, and the displacer beast also appears in The Monsters Know What They're Doing. If that's not enough to keep the article, it should be merged and redirected, because there is no benefit in removing all information by deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Monsters Know What They're Doing is actually one of the book entries I mentioned in my comment above as being nothing but a straight description of the creature as it exists in-game. That book is literally just a game guide for most of its entries, and does not really have any sort of discussion or commentary that indicates real world notability of the creatures it describes.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Monsters Know What They're Doing provides the description and use in the game, but only very little further real-world connection for the displacer beast. (That's different in some other cases.) I understand that a purely plot-summary article is no good in Wikipedia. However, WP:GNG does not say that "significant coverage" has to be done all in one source (which would exclude usage of many sources). WP:GNG also does not say that a secondary source providing only plot summaries does not count towards providing notability. As long as extant secondary sources together provide "significant coverage", WP:GNG can be fulfilled.
 * As I am obiously leaning towards a more loose interpretation, I see the "significant coverage" fullfilled by these three sources (you mentioned there were more?), and therefore want to keep the article. I can understand if someone sees this more critically and says this as too little for a stand-alone article, so that it should be merged (if a target is available, which it is) and redirected.
 * What I cannot understand is why it should be deleted. WP:GNG says "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." What would be the benefit of loosing what's here instead of at least putting it into another article? How would that make Wikipedia better? Daranios (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, the other book I was referring to in my comment was the "For Dummies" book, but that one is basically just a mention - a Displacer Beast is just the example monster mentioned in the paragraph explaining how awarding experience works, but there is no actual coverage of what a Displacer Beast is. Also, as mentioned in other AFDs, the independence of the "For Dummies" books is debatable, as they were written by two, at the time, current employees of Wizards of the Coast.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Monsters_in_Dungeons_%26_Dragons, where it is mentioned in context. This was one of the early monsters and there are sources across many authors for it spanning 30 years of coverage. There is not enough independent sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but basic facts about the monster are verifiable, e.g., a brief mention in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. It is a plausible search term and it is Wikipedia policy per WP:ATD to prefer alternatives to deletion, such redirects, for verifiable material. Hence, I think redirect is a reasonable policy-based course of action. None of the editors recommending deletion have given a policy-based reason as to why deletion is better than redirect; claiming "doesn't meet WP:GNG" is not enough to preclude a redirect. As such, their recommendations to delete are flawed. -- 19:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per Daranios and Necroesp.  Mini  apolis  19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete due to insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added another RS and removed some of the fan cruft. Ignoring all of the TSR publications cited, the article has three RS (Ewatt; Witwer et al; Bricken) that all choose to put a spotlight on this creation as an important part of the early game of D&D. Guinness323 (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Arts and Arcana" book, while not published by Wizards themselves, is an officially licensed dungeons and dragons product, and is listed on the official D&D product page as such. I would not really consider it to be independent any more than, say, the the current official comic or video games like Baldur's Gate.  All of them, while not actually published by TSR/Wizards, are officially licensed, created with Wizards, and advertised as being official D&D products on their own website.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The three authors are independent of WotC. Their plan was to demonstrate the changes in D&D artwork, but in order to do so without running into copyright issues, they needed to gain permission of WotC to use any and all artwork. The easiest way to do this was to get a license from WotC. If WotC had commissioned the book as a vanity piece, it would have been a WotC publication and would have said so on the title page. In fact it is published by Ten Speed Press, and the copyright is owned by Witwer et al. Guinness323 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss Guinness323 's source.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Guinness323's argumentation for the independence of Arts and Arcana seems plausible to me. The authors seem not to be associated with Wizards of the Coast. An internet search provided a Forbes article, which says things like: The "illustrated history is providing an unprecedented look at the visual evolution of the game, showing its continued influence on the worlds of pop culture and fantasy" and "Art & Arcana helps put the game in context". That sounds exactly like the kind of out-of-universe analytical content which has been belamented as absent in so many AfDs. Daranios (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on real-world independent sources: Art & Arcana and Of Dice and Men, currently cited in the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article currently cites three non-primary sources (Arts & Arcana, Of Dice and Men, and io9), which should be enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Neutral (see the belove comments) Not a very active user (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of Dice and Men/Witwer source is clearly not significant coverage: according to a Google Books search, the book only mentions this once and directly quotes from the Monster Manual. The io9 is a Gizmodo article which just includes it in a list of monsters. Neither of these demonstrate notability so I stand on my delete !vote. I don't have access to Arts & Arcana, so I'm even giving that the benefit of the doubt. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked out "Of Dice And Men" from Google Books, and it seems that you are right. I'll change my vote to "neutral" unless more non-primary sources can be found. Not a very active user (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, of the secondary sources given, one is a passing mention and the independence of the other is questionable. Undisputedly, they are not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't what we do here dispute about if this passes GNG? There were two more secondary sources discussed. What again were the benefits of deletion for Wikipedia compared to at least a merge in a case of doubt about GNG? Daranios (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect with a very selective merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons Redirects are cheap, while there are insufficient references in reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG it is a plausible search term, a small amount of additional material can be incorporated there. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Not that I think we need more than one list of DnD monsters, but that's a discussion for another time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:33, 19 February 2020 (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.