Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medusa (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   keep. In the sense of "not delete"; there is quite a lot of support for a merger, but no clear consensus, and the merge target is also not clear. That discussion can continue on the talk page if needed.  Sandstein  05:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not Notable and can be put in other articles

I'm proposing this article for Deletion.

First of all, I have a lot of respect for the D&D game, I am a player/fan, and I have appreciated the work of the editors to provide quality entries about the major subjects. People who work on the WikiProject for D&D have done a great job. However, this particular article (and a category of them), is not of good quality. This has been brought to my attention based on a few related deletion votes, so I've decided to choose one of the more egregrious articles.

The Medusa already has an entry on Wikipedia that explains what the creature is in Mythology. There is also an entry for Greek Mythology in Popular Culture that lists several fictional variants of the Medusa. Furthermore, the article's sole contribution is either a Bibliography of which version of the rules the creature was published in, or an in-universe style of description (that isn't much different from its classic form). If we allow an entry for the D&D Medusa, what about all the different variations in other games. I think the violates the policy for WP:NOTABILITY. JRT (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than add a delete tag to several of these, I wanted to bring up the subject that many of the monsters in this list are similar. I don't believe they should all have a seperate article, and many (but not all) of the individual articles are not significant enough to warrant their own entries.  Satyr__(Dungeons_%26_Dragons), Dryad_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons), Manticore_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons), Faun_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons), etc, are all mostly variants of the classic mythology.

Dungeons_%26_Dragons_creatures_from_folklore_and_mythology

Addendum: I would suggest the following possibilities.


 * Delete the article.
 * Merge the article into Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture, without the bibliography--this can be whittled down to a distinct paragraph.
 * Merge the "D&D Creatures from Folklore/Mythology" articles into one single article. This would require some discussion with the D&D WikiProject in terms of categorization.  But I think it's clear based on past precedent we should not encourage a separate article for every D&D monster out there.

JRT (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Though the ones you have listed seem okay to receive such treatment at the first glance, I would caution you against anything like mass tagging. Some creatures in D&D are mainly background features, while others are fairly central and important to the property and have significant identities distinct from their mythical inspirations (where they exist) and are have notability through mention in third party products. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentI agree about not mass tagging, and that's why I haven't done so, however, this particular really doesn't add anything. I have no objection to articles about fictional beasts if they suffice to be notable (for instance, Kender which are part of a widely-read novel series), however, not every D&D monster is worth putting in WP either (and should likely be moved to Wikia or other sources), and I think the articles on the mythological based monsters, which are based on the mythological creature, do not need a seperate article on Wikipedia.  I have to say about half of the articles in that list would not meet any notability. JRT (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely doesn't need it's own article (it'd never be more than a stub). Strongly oppose anything but a passing mention of this in the Greek mythology's article, since that has the potential to be a massive article and this is but a minor occurence. The last option of a single article for all characters is preferable, but I don't think such an article needs to be categorised according to origin. Instead, I suggest to merge the content into the relevant lists at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Lord knows we don't need another one of those just to categorise the entries according to origin... Rennell435 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per Rennell435 above, as while the isolated, specific subject itself isn't particularly notable, the distant second-best option of merging into the Greek mythology article would rationally encourage clutter. Since D&D is notable itself and conducive to the creation of useful dedicated lists, it should and ought to be put there instead. Edwin Herdman (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well-sourced and scoped and should be maintained per our editing policy. Greek mythology in popular culture is much worse - a grotesque list which needs to be completely rewritten. Warden (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Greek Mythology in Popular Culture appears to be a red-link, which makse your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument just that little bit more stupid. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ahem --> Greek mythology in popular culture.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That article was suggested by the nominator as a merge target. I had copied the name but that was a piped alias.  I have amended the link to the underlying article name. Warden (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article is "well sourced", could you explain where are all the "reliable sources independent of the subject" that are inherent to good sourcing ? Because there are none, and you know it. How long are you going to repeat the same false statements ? Your persistant refusal to respect one of the most important rules of WP and to acknowledge what others tell you is borderline disruptive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the article is "Well Sourced", it's not very fitting an encyclopedia. I'd argue that covering the minor monsters for RPGs, especially those that aren't either original IP and like this one taken from a mythological creature verbatim, seems to violate WP:NOTGUIDE.  Since that guideline says we should not create dedicated articles on subjects like video game weapons, creatures, vehicles, etc., I'd argue that we should apply that to game RPG content.  It's not like this information can't be found elsewhere, even the OGL rules can be placed in Wikimedia:Commons.  I'm willing to see articles where it crosses over into fiction, is a major cultural point or contribution (Drow elves, for instance), etc.  But this one certainly does not fit that guideline.  JRT (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden, or merge as described above - no need to delete this. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. References are player guides, not significant commentary.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus non notable and does not deserve article, per WP:GNG. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Medusa - the two are the same entity. I'd rather have a more robust single article than an artificial dichotomy here. Sources currently are primary. I suspect there are some commentary on the development of D&D material (i.e secondary sources), but I don't have any to hand. Casliber
 * No, they aren't. One is mythological, one is fictional.  They are separated in time by thousands of years.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are both malign snake-haired female evil beings who turn victims to stone with their gaze. I don't hold that the Ancient Greeks necessarily believed they were real either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, neither of them is a malign being. One of them is a fictional construct in a 20th century game and the other is a mythological creature in stories told in Ancient Greece.
 * Casliber, what relevance is the Publication history, for example, of the D&D medusa to the real mythological medusa? To host any of that kind of content there would be WP:UNDUE. Rennell435 (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Whatever the outcome, a large portion of the "content" can be substantially summarised. The entire "publication history" section contains about two-sentences-worth of information. Rather than repeating "the medusa appears in the Monster Manual for this edition" under every section, it should simply be "... appears in the Monster Manual for w, x, y and z editions". Stretching the same piece of information across multiple sections doesn't help the reader. Rennell435 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - I think I am leaning towards the merge plan of Nom here (with emphasis on the fact that there is no suitable merge target; one should be created). Many of these mythically derived creature articles have excessive in-universe style material that isn't even useful to most fans, as it seems to be derived from a particular edition's take that is less than uniform. As Rennell435 states above, the factual publication history is even a bit wordy; I think that a summary style article could present this info better. Finally, I think such an article would be much easier to support with references: one may quibble that an article that mentions a particular creature may be trivial, but that a resource mentions that D&D includes mythical resource should be non-controversial and not too difficult to find. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak merge to Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture: The fictional monster of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise does not meet the general notability guideline as an individual subject. The article is referenced with primary sources and tertiary sources, but no secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the chronology and which for notability purposes are the ones that provide the most objective evidence of notability, so there is no presumption that the Medusa of Dungeon & Dragons deserves to have a stand-alone article. A search engine test shows nothing to presume something different. Given the lack of detailed mentions of this particular Medusa in reliable secondary sources, I'm not convinced that a merge to Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture would be the best option but, since there are other versions of Medusa mentioned there that are even weaker, I suppose it's an acceptable alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting article, well sourced, with educational links. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is this article "educational"? There's very little information that is not either solely a bibliography, or otherwise deals with game stuff (such as the creature being lawful evil) that would be notable. JRT (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. I think D&D's medusa is distinct enough (generalizing an entire race from a single individual) that Wikipedia should cover it. I don't know if it needs its own article or not. I like the idea of creating a page for D&D monsters drawn from mythology. I would prefer that to simply adding it to a list of pop culture references. zorblek (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: My thoughts would be to move the Medusa to part of the GMIPC article, whittling it down to a paragraph for starters, and then perhaps going through the list of D&D creatures and consider consolidating them to a small list, with individual entries given merit based on them. If we do a merge, what would be the criteria for starting the article?  Would that be the province of Wikiproject D&D?
 * Also, where would we go on Wikipedia to discuss the general notability of role-playing game monsters? It looks like precedent has been set for video games in terms of what's notable or not, and for fiction--but the RPG is sort of a hybrid between fiction and game, and I'm not sure that the rules are clear here.  Keep in mind, I do think various topics about Dungeons and Dragons are valid and worthy of detail, but I simply don't think there should be a full article for every monster and treasure (spells, magic items, etc.) out there.  I'd like to discuss this as I think it has some deeper issues that need resolving.  JRT (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting and well written article.  We dont have to rigorously apply GNG criteria to harmless topics such as this – as per the  global consensus  reflected by the fact that GNG is merely  a guideline not a policy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:57, 20 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.