Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (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 except signature updates.  

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Energon (Dungeons &amp; Dragons)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage or in-game significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Send it to Cybertron. -Jéské ( v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew ) 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — non-notable. Mere primary sources. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to... good lord, some dungeons & dragons creature list. There are enough of them that this could find a happy home somewhere. The notability factor is too much to over come in this instance. Mstuczynski (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the lists would accept this; otherwise I'd've suggested it. -Jéské ( v^_^v :L7 Kacheek Defier ) 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Gavin Collins and Percy Snoodle. It's not apparently possible to expand this beyond a simple in-universe summary - and according to WP:RPG/N, (sources) should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - can you find sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say for certain that such evidence does not or will not exist. Considering how many thousands of books have been written on Dungeons & Dragons, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that someone could not eventually find sufficient sourcing for sub-articles like this one.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They may or may not feature in any more D&D books, but that doesn't make them notable. They have recieved no third party coverage, and our article could not be expanded beyond an in-universe description, which is not a valid article. They have no real significance within the D&D world, unless they hold pride of place within a setting with which I am unfamiliar. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto Milburn. Citrouilles, D&D is a paper and pen role-playing game and as such, any search for books on D&D will invariably yield first-party sources in the form of the masses of supplements, accessories, and such released for the game by Wizards of the Coast. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone believes them notable enough to have made an articles and others agreed enough to work on the article. I am not convinced with certainty that sources do not exist for them or that eliminating this information, which does have some sources benefits our project in any way.  Having sub-articles for larger topics is fine and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons.  Thus, the articles passes The First Pillar of Wikipedia.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we have articles on every aspect of every fictional universe then, provided someone wishes to work on them? We cannot source articles from primary sources. This article fails verifiability, lacks reliable sources, and will struggle to be written from the NPOV without original research, due to the sourcing issues. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why we shouldn't have so many articles on fictional universes provided editors want to work on them. We're an online encyclopedia gaining new users practically every minute.  The article passes verfiability guidelines and has reliable primary sources, which are perfectly fine with encyclopedic tradition.  If you look at original copies of Britannica or the Encyclopedie, you'll find many articles that start out as primary source based until eventual secondary sources could be find.  Those paper encyclopedia have had hundreds of years to evolve.  We have been around for I believe less than a decade.  By just presenting information from primary sources and not expressing on opinion on it, the article has a neutral point of view.  By not making an argument, the article does not refelect original research.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not considered a valid argument. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * what i need to type out the same thing everyone else has said on each AfD? sorry if you don't like it but i voted and gave a reason. would it be better if i just voted with no reason for my vote? shadzar-talk 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because notability is a vague and not agreed upon expression, we do not consider it a compelling reason to delete something. What's not notable to one person is notable to others and so it is just further proof that the article should be kept.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability, on Wikipedia, is having a substantial number of reliable sources- enough to write at least a short article. This has none. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not concvinced that given time sources couldn't be found from the wealth of D&D material out there. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if those sources come up, the article can be recreated. We don't keep articles on bands that 'will have sources someday', we don't keep articles on scientific theories we can find no sources for. Why should this be any different? I am proposing that this text be deleted; not that we ban talking about the monster. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it would be much more considerate to editors who are looking for such sources to redirect the article without deleting it, so that when sources are found, then they can be added to the old version of the article, rather than forcing the source finder(s) to start all over again. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is working on it, as far as I know, and no one apart from you is under the impression that reliable, third party sources could be found, and there is nowhere to redirect to. I repeat, this is not the treatment that would be given to any other article on something super-trivial, why should it be here? In any case, users are welcome to contact me (or one of many others) and get a copy of the article emailed to them or placed in their userspace. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone above has suggested merging to a Dungeons & Dragons character list. If nothing else, a redirect to Dungeons & Dragons that keeps the previous drafts of the article in its history in tact could be a reasonable compromise for now.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no list that this fits into. A redirect to the main D&D article would be rightfully deleted as a useless redirect, and I repeat, that is not the way we do things. Using that logic, we should redirect random MySpace bands to whatever genre of music they claim to play, to keep histories intact. That is not the way we work, for too many reasons to list. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone thought enough to create the article it must be a reasonable search term and so I can't see a redirect as unreasonable. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you get picky about which arguments are used, see here and here. In any case, you still haven't said why this article about a non notable fictional monster should be treated any differently than an article on a non-notable band. People put the effort in to create them, too. And NO ONE is going to search for this, it's a useless search term- if they were knowledgable enough to search for this to start with, a redirect to D&D is usless. That's like redirecting deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia to Internet. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone created an article on it, then someone would indeed search for the term. I'm not opposed to starting a list of monsters, characters from D&D that these things can be merged and redirected to.  As for bands, I'm not entirely sure that it's that bad for Wikipedia not to have articles on them.  Notability is just such a fluid concept as far as how our community interprets what that term entails.  If it was clear that we had true consensus on notability, we wouldn't have the combination of large article creation and contentious AFDs.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:10, 10 March 2008 (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.