Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle (monster)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — FR+ 06:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gargoyle (monster)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted PROD. This is WP:OR, there already exists an article on Gargoyle, this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Disclaimer, I am the creator of the article. "Gargoyle" the fictional monster type does not share a relation with the architecural element besides name and superficial appearance, so it wouldn't be fitting to have in that article. The appearance is actually closer to the grotesque. There is a mythological creature from where the "gargoyle" architecture feature got its name, but that has its own section at gargouille. It is certainly not original research or synth as all the sources are clearly cited and clearly refer to the monster as its own entity.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You write "the gargoyle is a fantasy and horror monster inspired by the gargoyle architectural element". So this article is clearly about the architectural element. This is no more than a "In Popular Culture" section made into an article. Your first source is an instruction booklet on how to draw mythical creatures. Another describes "The gargoyles of Notre-Dame" i.e. the architectural features on that cathedral. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not it at all. Are you going to merge List of swamp monsters into swamp because it was inspired by swamps? How about merging Nessie into Plesiosaur because one was inspired by the other. It's the same idea here. Putting it in the article about the statue would be incorrect, because it has nothing to do with the architecture element, despite being inspired by the name and appearance. A proper "in popular culture" section for Gargoyle would only include usage of the statues in popular culture, not the monster based on the statues. Gargoyle statues can't come to life, gargoyle monsters (or monster disguised as statues) can.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect/merge - unneeded WP:CFORK. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see any coverage of the monster on Gargoyle, so it's not a CFORK. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
 * The monster is a gargoyle! There is coverage (as an animal, fantasy figure, legend) in the main article. It's the same subject so is a fork. Polyamorph (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not the same subject. If it was, gargoyle monsters would all look like gargoyle statues. They don't. They generally look like statues that aren't gargoyles. They are also only linked to cathedrals and the like part of the time, the other half of the time it's shorthand for "any monster that's made of stone and comes alive" regardless of where it is and what its purpose was.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. It's clear from the sources in the article that there is enough verifiable content in the article to support a modest article, i.e., the topic of the 20th and 21st century conception of gargoyles as monsters seems notable per WP:GNG. I can see arguments for both merging and for keep separate articles. To merge or not can be discussed on the talk pages of the two articles. But in either case I don't see a policy-based argument for deleting verifiable material. Hence, keep or merge. --Mark viking (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about the sources. One is a book that an instruction booklet on drawing mythical creatures. The other describes "The gargoyles of Notre-Dame" i.e. the architectural features on that cathedral. The sources are poor and do not indicate general notability at all. On the other-hand, I am not opposed to merging into the main article.Polyamorph (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a fork. Polyamorph, there is no discussion in the so-called "main article" about monsters which shift between stone and animated form. This trope (what might accurately be termed "Clark Ashton Smith gargoyles") is clearly inspired by but distinct from the actual architectural element, which is the topic of the "main article". Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Gargoyle does describe "a monster called Gargouille or Goji". The content you describe is not well sourced (see my other comments about the sources in previous comments above). Though I note that the sources have been improved literally as I wrote this. Polyamorph (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not describing a monster that shifts between stone and fleshy form, so it is not the same monster. A cursory search reveals literally dozens of references to gargoyle-type monsters in various media since C.A. Smith, including but by no means limited to Gargoyles_(TV_series) and Gargoyle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). You might want to re-think. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep either as a stand-alone article (currently 2372 B (391 words) "readable prose size") or IMHO better merged into the article at the base name (currently 6766 B (1101 words) "readable prose size"). In any case this subject is sourced, the Weinstock source looks excellent (I can read three of the four pages), and there are plenty of other sources that deal with gargoyles in 20th and 21st Century film, literature, games and so forth. It is not OR, and as it has not previously been dealt with in Gargoyle, it is not an unnecessary CFORK. If it was I, I would have stuck it in as a section in the base name article to begin with. But that can be discussed in name space 1. I have added a few sources to both articles. Sam Sailor 21:34, 11 May 2018 (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.