Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (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   No consensus. CBD 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only coverage is by the primary sources of the various publsihers of the D&D franchise over the years. Unlikely to ever have significant coverage in reliable third party sources as is required for a stand alone article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - From time to time, articles like this get targeted for deletion by editors who consider the subject material trivial, and who think that getting them deleted will be easy. Much more often than one would think, the articles are retained. The material concerned is reviewed and discussed in periodicals associated with the RPG industry, and I gather from looking at other AFDs of this kind that such material is considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. Note that this is not a "keep" vote, but I probably will make one soon. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - a typical time wasting AFD. Sourcing is sufficient. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the sourcing "sufficient"? - not one piece is third party - they are all by the various incarntions of the D&D franchise holderActive Banana    (bananaphone  10:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Monster Manual is a good source; widely read, own article, etc. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you apparently dont know the difference between first party primary sources and independant third party sources. The D&D franchise was orginally published by TSR who was bought out by Wizard of the Coast who published your Monster Manual and every other source in the article.Active Banana    (bananaphone  13:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N tells us that independent of the subject excludes self-published work, promotional material and the like. The sources here are thus acceptable because they were obviously not published by lamia themselves and are not promotional in nature.  The fact that this material has remained in print over many decades and editions is good evidence of notability and the sources are ideal for our core policy as they are canonical. Warden (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a joke right? you are not actually expecting any adult to do anything but laugh you off the stage with that sort of "logic". Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm giggling too, but Warden's right in that TSR is not dependent on Lamia. I think it's clear that that sort of unidirectional independence isn't sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No joke. TSR is a publisher and writers such as Don Turnbull are authors of the usual kind.   Authors and publishers usually have a commercial interest in their work, claim copyright and so forth.  But the key relevant requirement is that the publishing enterprise is not a vanity press or self-published.  That is the case here as the sources we have here tended to be hard-cover best-sellers and this commercial success is good evidence that numerous people actually want to read about this stuff.  And that is the point of the notability guideline - that we should write about topics which have been noticed and so we know there is an audience for them. Warden (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to the appropriate article (I know there is one, just don't remember the name). Coverage in many editions of an award-winning game and, presumably, in third-party publications related to the game (such as Pathfinder). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The numerous sources provided in the article are quite satisfactory and our editing policy is to develop such well-sourced material by ordinary editing rather than to delete it. Warden (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I voted keep or merge earlier, but I have to admit, the sourcing in the article as-is is really pretty week... they're all first party. I wouldn't call it "quite satisfactory", just "sufficient enough to indicate that other sources probably exist". Unfortunately, as far as reliable sources go for fictional elements of D&D, most are in print rather than online. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This actually begs the question... is every TSR reference a "primary" source? While they're all separate versions of the same game, the latter editions are clearly derivative from the former.  It's much the same as when a character appears in a book, and then in a movie, and then on a calendar, and then in a novel... they're all primary sources, but the existence of multiple primary sources covering multiple formats or editions should contribute towards notability in some way that's not currently well-comprehended by our guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. They're all primary (except the one I just added in), but the number of times that something appears even in primary sources probably should have some impact on notability. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Michael C. Price and Drilnoth. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Jclemens' point about multiple primary sources. zorblek (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Drinloth. Merge Good catch citing Paizo/Pathfinder as a third party source. Of course, that should be added to the article as well. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Paizo is NOT an independant third party - they are/were the officially licenced non-independant publisher of material under the editorial authority of TSR/WoC. Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Paizo used to be officially licensed to publish Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Since Wizards of the Coast canceled the print versions of the magazines and created D&D 4th edition, Paizo has been competing with Wizards by continuing to support the third edition of the game instead. Wizards has not officially licensed them to create the material. Just because a company used to make products under a license doesn't mean that the newer non-licensed stuff is also first party. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed: Active Banana, you are incorrect. Paizo is independent from WotC in the same way that AMD is independent from Intel. They used to do some work for the associated company, but were never part of said company and no longer have any sort of working relationship. Further, the works referenced here are from post the period in which they did work for WotC. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've added one ref from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary. There may be others in the periodicals, but I don't think I have any of the ones that do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)The reference within that publication is not about the topic of this article, the D&D monster- its only relation is that a Wikipedia editor thinks that that the other game has a similar monster. Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a point for valid discussion. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Lamia in roleplaying games? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally against it, but I do find it a little dubious. It may well be the case that other RPGs cover include lamias in some significant fashion, but it seems to me that Pathfinder is a direct descendant of D&D 3e published under open license and bears direct relation to the D&D entity, and that Pathfinder is seen as the D&D wikiproject as falling in its scope. Changing the scope to all RPGs may be a bit coarse of a scope change, unless (again) lamias exist in a significant capacity in other RPGs worth covering. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've changed my vote above to merge. While I think citing Pathfinder is an valid angle, it still seems a bit weakly sourced, unless we can find more in the terms of sources independent of either WotC/TSR and Paizo. I sort of doubt they exist; the lamia isn't that notable of a creature compared to some. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in third party reliable sources demonstrated to verify notability. Let's just run through the first few sources on offer:
 * Monster Manual - not independent of the Dungeons and Dragons creators as a "core rulebook".
 * Fiends Folio - not independent - published by the creators of the game.
 * Creature Catalogue - not independent - it's an "official game accessory".
 * Monstrous Compendium Volume Two - not independent, published by the creators of the game.
 * I think the problem's quite clear - there are no independent sources. The "Bestiary" in the last cite might be independent of D&D, but it's not independent of the game it was designed for. Anthem 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think the number of primary sources weighs on the argument here. Primary sources can be used; they just can't be used to establish notability nor should original research be occurring. The mere inclusion of primary resources does not make an article non-notable. I do not buy the logic that the game itself disassociated for the trademark-holding publisher is tantamount to making the Bestiary not independent. There are dozens of books about chess. Should we decide that if a book is about chess that all books about a topic within it (say, opening moves) become non-independent? Surely not. -Sangrolu (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no "Chess Franchise Corporation" for the books about the topic to be independant from. 2) while the specific number of primary sources used is not relevant, the fact that ALL of the sources initially present are primary sources is important. The Piazo third party source added after the AfD started is not actually about the subject of the article itself, the D&D Lamia its about a different lamia (who probably has its origin in the D&D lamia, but that is Original Reseach to make that claim) Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re #1) Right! Above, Anthem was suggesting that we should be assessing notability based on independence the game not the publisher, which has nothing to do with the written notability guideline. Chess has no one publisher, and these days, publishers other than WotC publish open licensed material for the D20 System. #2 is a fair point, but play's to Drilnoth's suggestion that he proper course of action is to change the scope of the article. As for the claim of original research, I think that's a semantic game. The Bestiary talks about Pathfinder's version of the Lamia, and nothing to the contrary has been suggested. What shouldn't be disputed is that Pathfinder is a derivative of the D&D game; the Wikiproject D&D recognizes that and there are independent references in the Pathfinder articles saying that. However, I am beginning to agree that Drilnoth's solution is the most logical compromise. -Sangrolu (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Idea: Merge with Lamia: Just as a general note, I also wouldn't be opposed to merging it with Lamia and just leaving a one-paragraph summary of the publication history and description in that article. However, historically, such merges have been removed from the target article because the target is about the mythological creature; that is what led to the glut of "Blah Blah (Dungeons & Dragons)" article as far as I can tell. If we could merge a summary of the creature's appearance in the game with the main article, that would be perfectly suitable, and probably a better solution than keeping the separate articles or deleting the spinoff one. Something like a merge could be done with a lot of article which, as separate pages, have unclear notability. (after looking at Lamia): Scratch that, that page is a disambig and no other target is reasonable. Propose instead Lamia (games) or the like. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lamia (games) sounds a good idea, but I don't think that can be decided here - it must be done on the talk page. A merge is effectively a keep, with the topic moved to the talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best place would be a "Creatures in Dungeons and Dragons" article, but no single such article exists. There are multiple list articles broken up by edition and creature type. As for Lamia, the article did a length fork of the "in popular culture" content to a separate article, Lamia in popular culture. That article currently doesn't mention Dungeons & Dragons, though it should. But I'd have to say that most of the material covered in this article isn't appropriate there. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * per Active Banana, there is no commercial or organizational link between the historical inventors of chess and the authors/publishers of chess books. If there was, I would not consider chess books to be secondary sources when dealing with chess. The major issue is not that primary sources are being used, but that there are no secondary sources at all. Anthem 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. No mention coverage in independent sources.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pathfinder? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not significant coverage, which is what I should have said. Pathfinder seems to be a players manual for another game, involving a similar concept, not a discussion of this fictional creature.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fine distinction that doesn't really make a difference. The point is, it describes it; describing it = discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? It discusses the "Dungeons and Dragons" creature? Or does it not in fact mention another fictional creature, also based on the same mythological original?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While there are good arguments for merging made above, the fact is that IPC topic sections really need the consent of both the source and target articles, and there are reasonably good alternative merge targets as well. Sourcing is adequate to meet V, and the arguments about primary sources overlook the fact that multiple separate companies have published works covering Lamia: WotC and TSR can't both simultaneously be primary sources.  If WotC owns D&D now, then the older TSR publications are now independent sources. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * again laughable. WotC owns TSR and so TSR is not and cannot under any possible definition suddenly become "independent" Active Banana    (bananaphone  11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ActiveBanana, I admonish you to be more civil. While I see your point, I don't see what "again laughable" adds to the discussion other than belittling someone you disagree with. -Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Active Banana's tone there, but I have to agree with his overall statement that TSR is a primary source. WotC bought them, so it is not part of the same company (essentially). At present, I think the only independent source is the Pathfinder ref which I added. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Some of these sources are secondary sources, but they are not WP:Independent sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to call a spade a spade and laugh at ludicrous statements presented as facts. Active Banana    (bananaphone  19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V. WP:V demands that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". This article does not meet that test, and there are not sufficient reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that that discuss the subject to enable the defect to be corrected by editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I do not agree with your !vote, thank you for at least agreeing that there are reliable third-party sources, and just saying that there may not be enough of them. Some of the above commenters continue to say that there are no reliable sources. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quoting WP:V out of context. See WP:PSTS for a more detailed and nuanced description of why primary sources are perfectly acceptable to meet V. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I'm simply emphasising the part you generally tend to ignore. It's fine to use primary sources in an article, but it is completely unacceptable to base an article on primary sources. The foundation of all articles has to be material from "reliable, third-party, published sources". The use of primary sources to fill in detail is quite acceptable, but sourcing the vast majority of an article's content to primary sources violates WP:V.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you understand how nonsensical that is? V is about verifiability, not notability. If the reader can find the primary sources and read them to verify the information in the article, then V is met.  You're trying to make V subsume N, which is a stealth way of getting N from a guideline to policy, a perennially failed proposal. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the subject of this article is to all intents a fictional entity. For notability of such an entity we need to see significant coverage of the entity in that status -- that is, as opposed to in-universe coverage.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Counter-point It's not unreasonable to point out that if there are numerous fictional contexts something is used in, that can reflect a certain kind of notability. Certainly, at least some secondary sources are required to establish verifiability, but to suggest that something can be written about by several different published authors in several different context is not notable just because its fiction is kind of dodgy.  i kan reed (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what makes coverage "in-universe"? I'd say an article written about how the creature is useful in the context of the game (by an independent source, etc.) would be fine.  Heck, an article by a third party that describes the (fictional) habitat would also be fine IMO.  Are you disagreeing?  If so, could you explain on what basis? Hobit (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject, as required by the general notability guideline. Instruction manuals and the actual games are the furthest thing from independent. They're published materials from the people who profit from the creation of this fictional entity and represent a conflict of interest. They can be used to verify fictional descriptions. But they cannot be used to WP:verify notability any more than my personal statements can be used to verify notability of my blog. Our verifiability policy says that "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shooterwalker (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- I agree with Shooterwalker. The only sources that anyone has been able to supply were written by people who have a personal and commercial interest in promoting the subject. People are obviously capable of writing reams and reams of material on stuff they have a personal interest, and this can frequently be used to verify facts about the subject- but what it can't do is demonstrate notability as required by WP:N. Proof that this fictional element has gained much notice in the outside world is very much lacking. Reyk  YO!  08:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (though I'd much prefer a redirect to an appropriate article to leave the gate open, I just don't want to register a keep !vote because at present it's not promising). Apart from the Dragon magazine source the sources all seem to be bestiaries, game books etc. and not sources unconnected with the game itself. Even Dragon magazine is published by the game developer, though it is slightly removed compared to the others. It doesn't sit right with ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.." (WP:N). Someoneanother 16:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Make a notability check against DC 15 or be deleted. -Ikanreed 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To closing admin: Give it a shot. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly fails WP:GNG, no trace of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - in the interests of full disclosure, it would have been nice if someone had mentioned that, although it is not necessarily cavassing, some of the participants of this AFD were most likely attracted to it by this discussion. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The fictional magical beast of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise does not meet the general notability guideline as an individual subject. While the content of the article is referenced (with primary sources), the article does not provide sources independent of the subject, secondary sources or reliable third-party sources to presume that the Lamia of D&D merits to have an article. Outside of very basic descriptions of its appearances in primary sources, the article doesn't provide reception and significance for the beast as a subject, so there is no basis to establish that the beast is notable outside of the fictional context. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the fictional beast has notability to deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I am a fan of D&D, but I don't think this particular article belongs on Wikipedia for the following reasons.
 * Since this is based on the Mythical creature, and not an original IP creation like Drow, Beholder, or Mind Flayer, or a widely-known archetypical race such as Elves or Dwarves in D&D, I don't believe it requires it's own article on WP. At best, it might belong in a list or article of mythological D&D creatures, of be mentioned in the Lamia's in popular culture article.  I think it fails the notability guidelines.
 * The article itself is not worth saving--it is basically a line list of publication histories with a very brief description taken from the OGL rules. There is no analysis of its impact in popular culture or the game itself, nor is there any content that significantly separates it from it's mytholgical basis.  (And it seems there are several of these articles that might apply, such as Medusa).  JRT (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the potential additional list of articles that probably need to be looked at. I wanted to see where community consensus landed with this fairly obvious case before opening up a wider can of worms. Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest looking closely at this list and seeing if all those creatures are deserving of a special article based on their D&D incarnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dungeons_%26_Dragons_creatures_from_folklore_and_mythology JRT (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Even if one disagrees with the well made points of Jclemens and judges that the article fails GNG, there's a strong IAR case for keeping this harmless article which is interesting and useful to role players and fantasy fans.  Deleting this  article could set a problematic precedent that could lead to hundreds of other harmless and well liked fictional / RPG topics going the same way. As this is could be a highly consequential test case,  I reguest that the controversal admins who are always being taken to DRV leave closing this to one of their more moderate colleagues. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens's "well made points" (according to you) consist only in deliberately ignoring or distorting WP:GNG. It is a purely factual statement that this article fails WP:GNG. And "harmless" is not an existing notion in WP's functioning. Either a topic is notable, or it is not. An article clearly below our standards for inclusion won't be kept just because it is "harmless" (which is another way of saying WP:ILIKEIT). The deletion of this article won't set any "problematic precedents" because WP:GNG has existed and been enforced for a long time now, there's nothing new in deleting blatantly useless articles that would be better suited in fansites.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Other stuff exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people invoking IAR invoke only half of the policy - ignoring the rules- while ignoring the other more important half if it improves the encyclopedia. I am not seeing anything that supports how keeping this article actually improves the encyclopedia. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite simple: it contains interesting, sourced information. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Theres a lot of things that are interesting that are not encyclopedic. Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And a lot of things that are.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge - The character only exists in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. DanTD (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2011 (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.