Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There is legitimate disagreement here on whether sources published by Paizo are sufficiently independent. Since there is no consensus for either side of the debate, the closure here is accordingly.

I will make a note about the nominator's statement further down in the debate: "Big Mac's comment is not based on any existing WP policy and is thus to be excluded from the final conclusion of this AfD":

As a rule, I don't discard or exclude any good faith contribution to an AFD, even if it is misguided. Rather, I assume that everyone supporting a certain outcome will endorse not only their own, but also the arguments that others have presented that support their position. As such, I look for the best arguments that have been presented on either side, and then assess what level of support they have. Sometimes one side has made no good arguments whatsoever, but this is not one of those cases. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article about a creature from the Dungeons and Dragons game doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline in that the subject has not received significant coverage (ie. more than trivial mentions) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, the article uses exclusively primary sources directly affiliated with the subject: publications and core rulebooks from TSR and Wizards of the Coast, the official D&D publishers; or Pathfinder, a D&D "spin-off" game created by Paizo Publishing (publisher of two official D&D magazines) and using modified D&D rules under licence from Wizards of the Coast.

Obviously this D&D creature has no notability (as Wikipedia defines it) and the article should be deleted.

For those trying to find sources, I can only stress the importance of independence (which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with" D&D or its creator, for example, guidebooks from Bastion Press provinding supplementary material to the D&D rulebooks, under WotC's d20 licencing, are not independent) and significant content (WP:GNG provides an example: "The one sentence mention [...] of the band Three Blind Mice ("In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial."). Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nothing independently notable here. I rolled the dice for a saving throw, but it came up snake eyes. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment obviously no notability? Really? Then why was the result "no consensus" last time round? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the closer forgot that AfDs =/= vote ? But if you doubt this creature is obviously non-notable, then why is there no significant coverage from independent secondary sources in the article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That the arguments of the 'delete' side were not strong enough for the result to be 'delete' is a more likely explanation for the previous no consensus result than incompetence on the part of the closing admin. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, since the article sourcing is entirely primary, which is a violation of the GNG, delete arguments aére stroing enough, the only way to explain such a result is head count.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The admin who closed the last AfD for this article as "No consensus" was CBDunkerson. You could ask him yourself why he made that close. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying to resurrect the 1st AfD is pointless, this one is enough to deal with the article. It's sad for you it isn't going the way you want but per WP:DPAFD, renominations are allowed and it does seem people here feel the previous AfD wasn't satisfying. If my nomination wasn't strong enough, then I'm sure you would have found policy-based arguments to counter it. Unfortunately the only support I see for the article is based on deliberate ignorance of evidence and a reversal of the burden of evidence. I think you should just accept the way WP works and not try to circumvent the current discussion by clinging to the previous closure.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sad for me? I beg your pardon? I think the article should be kept, but it's not "sad for me" if it's deleted. It would be too bad for the encyclopedia, but I don't care on a personal level; I'd shrug. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, it's silly to reduce the issue of whether the article should be kept or not to what I am capable of arguing. I'm sure that other users - like BOZ or Jclemens - could do a much better job of arguing keep than I could. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- There already exists a lamia in mythology from which the D&D creature is obviously derived, this should just be a footnote in the pop culture section of that page. I'm going to repeat the argument I made over at this nom. Delete per WP:BADIDEA, "Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated... In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." Looking at WP:NOT, even if this specific case is not directly addressed, it is very similar in kind to WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. WP:NOT should not have to anticipate every bad idea for inclusion that is out there. Do we need a Poképrosal for D&D monsters? --Joshuaism (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the vast majority of these WP:VAGUEWAVEs are not at all related to this discussion. WP:GAMEGUIDE specifically encourages individually notable game content; since that is what is under discussion here, it is of no particular help to either outcome.  Likewise, WP:INDISCRIMINATE says nothing relevant about fictional elements like this.  Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE introduces WP:N, which is a relevant issue here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand some editors may see my recomendation as some kind of VAGUEWAVE, but I do believe that BADIDEA does apply and it helps to look at similar guidelines to gather an understanding of why BADIDEA applies. WP:GAMEGUIDE states, "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", these D&D monster articles are concepts that may not even justify a list let alone stand-alone articles. Personally I think a list of D&D monsters grouped by D&D edition is just fine, but stand-alone articles for each one is overkill. Some editors may wish to engage in some wikilawyering and state that GAMEGUIDE doesn't apply to tabletop games because only video games are mentioned in the guideline, but this is a clear violation of the spirit of WP:NOT and the goal of keeping wikipedia encyclopedic. --Joshuaism (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite that fact that I have not voted to keep in this case, I'm going to take issue with this. WP:GAMEGUIDE appears to be written from the standpoint of the VG wikiproject scope guidelines, which is perfectly fair. But just because they decided to establish some guidelines doesn't mean that instantly all other sorts of games should be beholden to it. Further, I'll hold that tabletop role-playing games are functionally different in some aspects than video games that can impact their notability; tabletop games often devote copious amounts of prose to describing creatures, and as such should be regarded much as fiction elements in literature, like Cylons or Dragons. Finally, as you have quoted there, it's soft of pointless to try to apply this standard against individual creatures. It says: "unless these are notable in their own right"; WP:GNG should be the first thing we should be evaluating anyways, so that guideline is not too helpful here.-Sangrolu (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree with the contention that independent sources such as Paizo's Pathfinder game are not independent, because it does come from a third-party source, and we do have a reference in the article to that game that was added during the prior AFD. I feel that this is sufficient enough to indicate that other sources probably exist. Merge may be a possibility regardless of the outcome here, but an appropriate page needs to be worked on. BOZ (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If redirected or merged, I would suggest that List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters would be a suitable target until we create a better one. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Paizo book would be a third-party source for an article about Wizards of the Coast, but not an article about a Dungeons & Dragons topic. The key distinction is that it is not a specific publisher's version of the creature, it is a game system's version of a creature. Paizo's Pathfinder Bestiary is not an independent source any more than Wizards of the Coast's Monster Manual is. WotC and Paizo both publish books for the Dungeons and Dragons game system, and in fact the Paizo source is nothing more than a very slightly modified version of the Monster Manual's version per the OGL.  A book for a game system is not independent of that game system.  Paizo's Bestiary is written for the Dungeons & Dragons system (albeit a slightly modified version), so it can't be an independent source for a Dungeons & Dragons topic. - SudoGhost 06:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Paizo being an official publisher of D&D magazines, and Pathfinder being a game system licenced under WotC, is enough to prove that they are affiliated with the subject or its creator, are not independent and thus don't establish any notability for the creature. Besides, notability is based multiple independent sources, Pathfinder alone could not save this article, so I suggest BOZ to focus of finding real sources instead of trying to fight the obvious.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ. Also note that per WP:ATD a merge must take precedence over a deletion if an appropriate target exists, which List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters does. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD's merge section requires something with enough WP:WEIGHT to be merged, anything more than a brief sentence or two would be WP:UNDUE per the sources provided. - SudoGhost 06:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It requires no such thing, and it would be nonsensical if it did--that would require a bar to keep a bit of useful info in an appropriate merge target article that is entirely counterintuitive to building an encyclopedia of appropriate-sized articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If article content didn't require appropriate WP:WEIGHT, then there's nothing stopping an article from containing any and every last thing a publisher ever so much as mentioned. Wikipedia articles are summaries of an article subject, not every possible detail.  Even in primary publication, a Lamia isn't a notable thing, just one of hundreds upon hundreds of entries in one of the Monster Manuals, and there's nothing showing that it's anything more than that. - SudoGhost 05:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read and internalize WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of Wikipedia's notability guideline. WP:NNC isn't refuting anything I've said, and clearly says due weight is what dictates content.  This article has virtually no prominence, even within primary sources.  WP:NNC is not free reign to put anything in an article just because it can be verified with a source, that's not what Wikipedia is for. - SudoGhost 07:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also failing to see where WP:ATD says a merge "must take precedence over a deletion if an appropriate target exists", WP:ATD says nothing even remotely similar to this. There are no requirements for when a merge would take place, that's what an AfD consensus is for. - SudoGhost 07:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Solved through regular editing" includes merging, which requires no tool use. WP:PRESERVE is also policy. Jclemens (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tool use" is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with a merge being "required". WP:PRESERVE doesn't say a merge is required either, it says "Preserve appropriate content", which is something a discussion determines, a merge is only valid there if it is appropriate.  It is a policy that requires something worth preserving, due weight is also needed there. Nothing "requires" a merge; the article has no weight in any sources, primary or otherwise.  Unless weight can be established for the content, there is nothing to merge, let alone any policy saying something must be merged. - SudoGhost 05:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article lacks independent reliable sources. Paizo's Pathfinder books are for the Dungeons and Dragons game system, therefore a book written for that game system is not an independent source for something included in that game system.  However, even assuming that this game book it independent of the game and writes about its own subject from a disinterested perspective, that still gives a single, very questionable independent source, an article needs more than that to establish any notability. - SudoGhost 06:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically Pathfinder system =/= D&D system, but the point remains that they're the same monster and both are WP:PRIMARYs for their own versions of it. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% what you're trying to say about their own versions of it. The player in me can probably go on and on about all of the differences between the two, but realistically, Pathfinder is the Dungeons & Dragons game system (as per the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game article and Paizo's own description), only with slightly tweaked rules for minor things (in the large scheme of a game system). If they technically aren't the same thing, then technically Pathfinder wouldn't be a valid source for establishing notability for the D&D version, because it wouldn't be the D&D version of the creature.  Either it's the D&D version, within the scope of the article and therefore a non-independent source, or a different game system, and therefore not describing anything in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game, falling outside the scope of the article and cannot establish notability for something it isn't describing, but it can't be both independent and within the scope of the article, either way it can't give notability to the article, let alone enough notability by itself. - SudoGhost 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, that was my point. That technically Pathfinder isn't D&D, but also that neither is a secondary source for itself or the other. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got confused with what you were trying to say I guess. - SudoGhost 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Has no sources that I can view as fully independent.  Pathfinder is an odd case, but I think it's valid to say that such materials would, at minimum, have to provide analytic and evaluative content regarding the topic, rather than simply an adaptation thereof. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Lamia (mythology). There is a lot of overlap between the two entities and I think one more robust article is better than two. Lack of out-of-universe commentary make a merge a distinct compromise possibility as I think other fantasy entities are more likely to have commentary than this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - While I wholly disagree with this conjectural notion of "NOTBESTIARY", and that WP:NOTMANUAL applies here, multiple reliable independent sources is still a requirement for WP:GNG. As discussed in the Ankheg article AfD #2, I don't find the PFSRD (and by extension, the PF Bestiary) as independent, as it's basically edited licensed WotC content. Now if you had all new material such as appears in the ecology books, that would be another matter. Even if you were to regard the PF Bestiary as independent, a single source is not sufficient for WP:GNG. So if the editors want to keep it, I'd admonish them to dig up more sources (if they exist.) - Sangrolu (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not accept the OP's assertion that independent sources that happen to be gaming products from other publishers are not valid. The adoption of the SRD by several other publishers (that have no legal connection with Wizards of the Coast) is a testament of how notable this game is. They have no obligation to use all of the monsters within the SRD, so use or non-use indicates notability on an individual level. Furthermore, the similarities differences between the legendary creature of the same name and its implementation in the world's most well known roleplaying game are culturally significant. People studying this legendary creature can compare this and the other article to separate legend and RPG fiction. With RPG culture overlapping into other areas, this sort of thing is important. Big Mac (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Big Mac's comment is not based on any existing WP policy and is thus to be excluded from the final conclusion of this AfD. Being mentionned in another primary source is not a criteria of WP:GNG. I also note you do not provide any reasonable argument for not accepting my assertion. First, I'm not talking about "independent sources" (since there are none in this article). As I explain in my nomination, publisher Paizo and its game Pathfinder have a strong affiliation to D&D since Paizo was the publisher of two official D&D magazines, and as indicated in the various articles, core Paizo employees, after having been editor-in-chief of these official publications, became lead creative members of Pathfinder. Pathfinder itself uses a modified D&D system under licence from Wizards of the Coast and basically reuses D&D content under the said licence. No independence possible at this level, legal connexion to WotC undeniable. Second, Pathfinder doesn't satify the GNG, which specifically asks for secondary sources ("Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."). A proper secondary source makes "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source". Pathfinder doesn't make provide any analytic on the D&D monster, it is just a work of fiction using a name in its gaming mechanism, the link is just the game rules, the fiction itself and thus is primary content. It's even more obvious as Pathfinder, under the d20 system, copies the D&D creature itself, reproduces the primary source. Third, claiming that "the similarities differences between the legendary creature of the same name and its implementation in the world's most well known roleplaying game" are "culturally significant" without any source but your own faith in the statement, is WP:ILIKEIT. I certainly cannot see such content in the current article. If this is your argument for conservation, either it is an aberration, or it is a call to create this content. But you do not provide any source which would allow anyone to write it, meaning the content is not notable and could only be possible through WP:OR. You cannot qualify something as "culturally significant" if there are no source to back up this claim. Your comment is entirely groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignores content guidelines, and should not be, in any case, included in the final closure rationale.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Folken de Fanel, you can certainly argue why someone's comment is not based on guidelines, but it's not up to you to decide what is "to be excluded from the final conclusion of this AfD''. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Big Mac, nobody is arguing that the Pathfinder source is not independent of another publisher (WotC), and that doesn't matter. Pathfinder is not independent of the game system  that it uses.  This isn't Lamia (Wizards of the Coast), who the publisher is and is not independent of is irrelevant here.  The Paizo Pathfinder book, like the WotC Monster Manual, is describing the subject in its own game system. However, if we pretend for a moment that Pathfinder isn't for the same game system, then yes it would be independent.  However, it would then be describing a different version of this creature, and would be only tangibly related to this article, describing Lamia (Pathfinder), and affording no notability to Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons).  It's either independent and not describing the Dungeons and Dragons creaure, or it is describing the Dungeons and Dragons creature and is therefore primary, since it's describing a creature within its own game system.  Either way, it gives no notability to the article's subject. - SudoGhost 05:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are really no reliable sources for this that would help it satisfy the notability guidelines. The only one that could possibly count would be Pathfinder link (and Folken de Fanel makes a very strong argument as to why this isn't a purely secondary source).  But even if it did count, articles are required to have multiple reliable sources.  Pretty much everything else that talks about the D&D specific version of the monster are books directly related to D&D itself.  There is already a section in the Lamia (mythology) article where it lists appearances of the creature in popular culture.  Some of the info here could possibly be merged there, but that's about the extent of it.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very minor fictional character with insufficient independent coverage for notability; a derivative RPG isn't independent coverage. Rates a mention in a much reduced "pop culture" section of the mythology article and in D&D monster lists, but that does not require a merger.  Sandstein   05:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete If the only sources are in-universe than that's a pretty good indication that this isn't sufficiently independently sourced for an article and I'm with Sandstein that adding the required mentions in other articles does not need a merge. Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 23 June 2012 (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.