Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimlock (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The result was   nomination withdrawn. – sgeureka t•c 17:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Grimlock (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Although Grimlocks have been present in various versions of Dungeons & Dragons for a long time, I don't think they really have any notability outside of the Dungeons & Dragons universe. Although there are sources cited, they are all primary. Non-primary sources added. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * delete non notable fictional creature, this belongs on a D & D specific wiki. Looking at some of the lists linked from Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters I fear there are hundreds of similar articles. Yoenit (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keep: I've never played D&D or AD&D, but I can tell from the article and the references that the character is well developed and well-established within the realm of D&D, which obviously makes it notable within that context. I can see that it might be questionable as a full article, but on the other hand there's too much in the article for inclusion in another article &mdash; so I can't recommend a merge either. It's too bad that Wikipedia doesn't have a concept of subarticles (the way Wikibooks organizes its books), because that would be the perfect solution for this type of article. -- BenTels (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do play a lot of D&D, and, while the Grimlock is a staple, it's hardly super-important. We don't need to merge all the information- the point is, it's all in-universe stuff; stuff not really important in the real world. This article is written from a real-world perspective, but that means it basically has become a list of books in which the grimlock has been listed for various editions. Literally within reach, I have four D&D rulebooks, and I have dozens more on my bookshelf. I could fill articles and articles and articles with D&D-related material (or material related to a number of roleplaying games) that is well sourced to primary sources, but completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Says who? I have literally hundreds of such books myself, but that has little to do with whether this is cyclopedic. - jc37 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we should have articles on every D&D monster? They could certainly all be referenced to published books... J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say keeping all the ones with an "Ecology of..." article might be reasonable, though I'd still want most of the merged personally. Not sure where to put this guy though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
 * Those with "Ecology of" articles are certainly more notable than others, but whether it's enough or not alone, I don't know. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, that's pretty much why I said that it's a pity Wikipedia doesn't use subarticles. An article Dungeons and Dragons/Grimlock makes a lot more sense than this. As would individual articles on D&D monsters, arranged under a D&D article. -- BenTels (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real-world notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "real-world notability"? Are you referring to the WP:GNG or something else? Hobit (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - An encyclopedia is about reference. This isn't the ham sandwich that some minor character had for lunch. The is a creature utilised in a "real world" game played by not a few "real world" people. And found in other media besides just the game. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. per WP:5P - "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." - jc37 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article seems to fail the general notability guidelines as there seems to be no coverage in independent reliable sources. Yoenit (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not indiscriminate. Please understand a term before you use it indiscriminately : ) - jc37 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning that D&D is notable. That does not make every constituent beastie independently notable, as notability is not inherited. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * keep Hart, Mark A. "Ecology of the Grimlock." is a highly in-depth, independent RS focused solely on the topic. Given the massive number of primary sources, I think we're fine.  I'm going to claim from memory that White Dwarf has covered this to some extent too... Hobit (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a WD reference in addition to the ecology article, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on, could you please explain why it is an independent source? It was published in Dragon, which is owned by Wizards of the Coast. That does not seem "independent of the subject" as defined in the general notability guidelines. Yoenit (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the White Dwarf the the Grimlock appeared in at home. I will add the link tonight.  Web Warlock (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article appears in Dragon Issue #327, after WotC sold the magazine to Paizo Publishing. Paizo is a completely separate entity from WotC, as can be quite easily seen from their refusal to convert their D&D material to WotC's new 4th edition rules; instead, they came out with their Pathfinder (periodicals) material published under a revised version of the older 3rd edition rules; this material directly competes with WotC's 4th edition material for the hearts and minds and D&D players. Not only are Paizo and WotC separate companies, but they are no longer BFFs. Guinness323 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Paizo Publishing is in the business of creating and selling D&D materials. An article from a publisher of D&D materials about a D&D creature does not constitute an independent reliable source. Additionally, Dragon was not "owned" by Paizo; it was published under license from WotC. This calls its independence further into question as licensors are known to exercise editorial control over their licensed properties to greater and lesser degrees. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, but the monster is not their own. Games Workshop is in the business of creating and selling wargames, but if their publication reviewed a different wargame, or even a third-party publication for one of their own wargames, it would be independent, would it not? J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If Foo Company reviews a similar product that it does not manufacture it would serve as an indicator of notability, although the conflict of interest would lead me not to lend it the same weight I would to a comparable review in an outlet with no connection to any similar product. A review by Foo Company of a source that reviewed one of its products would not IMHO be independent because of the clear connection between it and the product. Whether Paizo created grimlocks or not, it's still intricately connected to D&D by virtue of the licensing and manufacturing involvement and this raises serious questions of its independence. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The notability of the game is self-evident as a pervasive social phenomenon. "Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures" is fairly massive, its component articles generally well-documented and well-accepted. Material would seem to be of interest and use to Wikipedia users; difficult to see how deletion of this article would aid the Wikipedia project in any way. —Carrite, Sept. 22, 2010.
 * With all due respect, that's really not valid- you've used just about every "argument to avoid" in the book. Notability is not inherited, the fact other articles exist has no baring on this one, the fact it's interesting or useful is irrelevant. The idea an article does "no harm" is also irrelevant. If you support the retention of the article, it's up to you to demonstrate notability/find reliable sources, as Hobit has started to do above. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. It's up to me to offer my considered judgment as to whether Wikipedia is better off with or without this article, to make my best case, and to the closing administrator to weigh all the arguments and make a judgement. There are no Universal Rules as to whether an article is kept or deleted; as the header of each and every AfD page says: "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." I apply a rule of reason to these decisions: the bottom line is Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article? I've got no particular love for articles about fictional characters and have never played D&D in my life, but it seems that such material is a long-accepted, well-integrated, widely-utilized part of Wikipedia and I can see no rational reason for deletion of this particular article. You may differ and are entitled to your opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, but, seriously, don't expect anyone to take your arguments seriously. This is looking like it will close as a keep, and the sources that are being dug up are helping the article, but in other cases, that will not be the case. Literally none of the arguments you used were based in policy- if you don't like the policies, that's fair enough, but that doesn't mean you should be disregarding them. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, there are certain Universal Rules, and they are found at the various pages for content policies and guidelines. One of the core guidelines is the general notability guideline, which states that articles need to be supported by independent reliable sources. I'm sure there are many people who believe Wikipedia would be better off with all sorts of articles that are currently disallowed, but more people (as in, the broader consensus that has formed around content policies and guidelines) say that it would not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An actual universal rule is WP:IAR. A !vote cast in the interest of improving the encyclopedia should darn well count, though probably not as much as one cast with the same motivation backed by policy/guidelines.  Hobit (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IAR is not a get out of jail free card. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed the part where I said it was. IAR is a way to say "hey, this rule isn't really applicable here, I think we should do 'X' instead".  Such comments are important, though should be generally weighted more weakly than policy/guideline based comments.  We've deleted articles based on IAR (I think Hillary Clinton's hair was an article at one point and had plenty of sources meeting GNG quite easily.  But we deleted it because the GNG was agreed to be the wrong yardstick for that article) and we've kept articles for that reason.  It's a fair argument.  Hobit (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above Keepers, or merge/redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters if a Keep winds up looking unlikely. BOZ (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE I also have a reference that the Grimlocks that appeared in the TV Series Charmed are based on these creatures (which did not exsist prior to D&D). I will get that reference as well. Web Warlock (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With a little work in fleshing out antecedent material on which the grimlock was based, and a greater amount of detail about the actual creature and how it has been developed through the years, this article could be improved in the same way as blink dog and bulette.Guinness323 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hafve added a White Dwarf link. There is another one (before issue 27), but I can't find it. Web Warlock (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – looks like a variation of H.G. Well's Morlocks in The Time Machine. Lambanog (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article still needs some tweeking in that there is some statements that need to be a little more cited but in my opinion passes WP:RS and WP:N. As a side not to reading some of the arguments, WP:IAR is not a get out of jail card but... HOLY CRAP it's an awesome way to view how Wikipedia is!  An opinion even if it does not comply with policies is still an opinion.  With editors who have been around, I would hope that WP:IAR can have some weight when needed! - Pmedema (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind to explain which part of WP:N this article meets? I can't be the gng, for there are no sources independent of the subject as far as I know. Yoenit (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * White Dwarf is certainly independent and I'd say Paizo is also independent. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * White Dwarf is owned by Games Workshop. According to the wiki article of the latter it obtained official distribution rights to Dungeons & Dragons and other TSR products in the UK around 1976. They may be independent today, but I don't think they were in 1984 (I may be wrong, if so please correct me). I understand these are excellent reliable sources of information about the Grimlock and there is nothing wrong with using them, but they do not establish notability. That being said, there is little reason to keep arguing this point now as this is gonna be closed as a keep anyway. Yoenit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Seems the subject is notable. There may be a case to merge it at some point, but there's no need for this to be deleted now. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (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.