Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hook horror


 * 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   merge to  List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hook horror

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not independently notable.  Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  transwiki  to some (edited per request) fanboy site run by people who do not have their primary focus that of creating an encyclopedia and that would love this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, there are only primary sources attesting to its existence within the game, no third party coverage to indicate that anyone thinks its worthy of coverage - Failing WP:GNG means delete redirect or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article. The suggested target article seems to also suffer from bloating based on primary sourced material and so a merge may simply be shuffling the shit from one side of the stall to another and not actually improving the encyclopedia in any way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * let's keep personal, or even broad-stroke, name calling like "fan boy" to a minimum. You would not want to be accused of pushing a point of view here. Web Warlock (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I AM pushing a POV, one that is based on that premise that the intent of the pillars should be followed and that Wikipedia be an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for a fansite.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that in some parts of the Internet referring to someone as a "fanboy" is considered a personal attack. I don't think it quite rises to that here but it's not exactly polite, you might want to be careful about using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. (Also I'm pretty sure this is already on D&DWiki and I'm totally sure D&DWiki is treated as "NOPE" by most roleplayers.) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the creature was one of the few that had an action figure made and was featured on the D&D cartoon. I am also certain that I can find more data on it as well. Web Warlock (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added three independent sources. Edited article. Will add more soon. Web Warlock (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't IMDB user edited? I would assume that would invalidate it. Stating that it appeared in primary material cannot be said to establish independent notability anyway. The same goes for the sticker book. I assume the "Open Gamming License" part isn't actually meant to establish notability, but it wouldn't do anything in either case. TTN (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what I can do in a handful of minutes on my phone. I'd wager that once I sat down to do the real research I would discover a lot more. Web Warlock (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sticker book was most certainly done under an official license and not in any independent manner, as was the figurine. A mere listing in IMDB is not sufficient to establish notability for a film listed there, let alone for the passing appearance of a critter in an episode and as far as I can tell, the IMDB doesnt even mention the Hook Horror. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Of the sources given in the article, there is precisely two, the last two, that are not primary sources; of those, one is IMDB saying 'this appeared in this episode' (and, being IMDB, is of questionable reliability) and the other is 'this is a coloring book that had this monster in it'. There is precisely zero out-of-universe notability here; merging and redirecting to the list is appropriate because as part of the group there is a smidge of notability and redirects are cheap, but independently there is nothing for an article here.. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - to an appropriate article (though would it be List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters? It appeared in others as well).  The subject has no reliable third-party sources to establish any notability. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Furthermore, note that references 1 and 12 are not owned by TSR or Wizards, thus meeting the GNG even if we assume for the sake of argument that neither TSR nor WotC sources are independent (I maintain that at most one may be non-independent). Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * fact is, the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:POKEMON - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products, the  ITICCDMPRIPR exception exists only in your mind. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Being "owned" by TSR or Wizards is not the definition of independent coverage, and Games Workshop's agreement with TSR certainly dismisses any arguments that White Dwarf could be considered an independent source for their products. Reference 12, the coloring book, has zero significant coverage.  Not a single reference comes close to satisfying WP:GNG, and an article requires several.  - Aoidh (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and the White Dwarf source is not about the creature in any real world discussion, it is the original appearance; and so White Dwarf as the creators are clearly not independent. And the coloring book while published by Macdonald Purnell Books and not TSR/WOTC directly, it is done under an official licensee relationship, ie, also not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:49, 24 September 2013 (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.