Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night hag (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 for deletion. Merger seems to have a consensus, but no target has been decided upon; further discussion should take place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This articles doesn't establish notability, and it mostly relies on primary sources. TTN (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This is a pretty basic D&D creature, and sources beyond the primary source materials will be found, if looked for. bd2412  T 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two brief passing mentions really don't seem to be screaming notability. I could imagine the main Hag article being developed, but could this one really achieve anything more than a minor paragraph at best, if that much? TTN (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why nominate it for deletion, rather than proposing a merge? bd2412  T 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There didn't appear to be anything of worth that would actually bolster the parent article. Publication history doesn't really mean much if it is simply a list without more information and the ecology of this single subtype would probably end up being a minor focus if the Hag article were refocused into GA/FA material. If you are interested in sorting out a merge, I'll withdraw this. TTN (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it as a short article. Although it uses a lot of primary sources, external references show notability extending beyond those sources. However, if consensus is against this existing as a separate article, a merge into Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) would be the logical course of action. bd2412  T 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:GNG requires coverage in multiple secondary independent RS. The Tresca source is the only one that works.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per bd2412. BOZ (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * merge there is a single independent third party source (the White Dwarf), which says the drawing in the book is pretty. Piazo was licensee producing official content and hence is not independent.  Fails any rational interpretation of significant coverge which is required for a stand alone article. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the blog, per BOZ is by the game's creator and hence also not independent. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom| TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom] 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per user TRPOD above. One passing mention in a single third party source is not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Note that since Planescape: Torment is a part of the Planescape official D&D setting, any mention of the game itself is regarded as primary source, and interviews from its developers are first-party, affiliated material which cannot be used to assess notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this one I actually have some good 3rd party sources on. yes on the monster in question. I will start digging those up. Web Warlock (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the Xulon is a self publishing advocacy press, not a reliable published source, and has been removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was not you that added the Xulon, it was another editor. sorry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Apparently, the author of the work in question "prophesied to the nation of Uganda in May, 2009 with documented miracles", surely a display of expertise in the field. Seriously, though, this is not a BLP, this is an article on a fictional creature in a role-playing game. A source whose job description is "prophetess" writing in a field where there are no rules to begin with at least demonstrates that knowledge of this particular fictional creature has leaked beyond players of the game. bd2412  T 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is claiming "documented miracles" and prophecies is clearly NOT a reliable source in any manner that they have been published. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I read through that source over my lunch (mistake, nearly choked) and I wouldn't trust that woman to write about Checkers, let alone D&D. She isn't qualified and most of the material was more made up than the admitted fantasy of D&D. I have an article sitting in a box at home that discusses the D&D Night Hag (specifically D&D) in terms of Jungian archetypes and was published in an academic journal.  I just have to find it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence my use of "seriously, though" (i.e., I realize that this author can not be taken seriously as an authority on the subject). However, I do not propose to cite this author as proof that Dungeons & Dragons is written by demons, merely to show that people outside the world of Dungeons & Dragons are aware of it. bd2412  T 17:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. But that might make it a better source for say D&D in the Popular Culture or something like that. She doesn't really talk enough about Hags for this. Web Warlock (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Granted, it's neither a great source nor a great argument. bd2412  T 17:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a word to say that Webwarlock's source seems really interesting, and if it allows for significant (ie too large for a merge) out-of-universe development, I might reconsider my !vote. As for self-published sources, authors must have shown expertise on the subject matter (and here "prophecies" and "miracles" are not really the subject matter). This could probably be cited to assess popularity (at least of D&D), but certainly not to assess notability as defined by WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * updated I have the reference. I am editing the article now. Web Warlock (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 'updated''' the source I have is more suited to the D&D Hag in general, not the Night Hag specifically. Web Warlock (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, may I suggest that you also update your recommendation?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done doing research. I have over 35 years worth of books, journal articles and 3rd party magazines to go through and they are not searchable; they are in copier paper and diaper boxes in my basement.Web Warlock (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but reverse the redirect back to night hag, and change the focus of the article on the creature from folklore, using the D&D books as third party coverage. There is a ton of coverage for the original concept, so this could be expanded in that area and have extraneous details like the publication history removed, and add a focus on the rules-based interpretation. —Torchiest talkedits 04:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, what you want to do is merge to Nocnitsa, as this is the already existing article for the creature from folklore.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, but there's also a source in the article pointing towards alp (folklore), and since a night hag is female, it would fall under mare (folklore) according to the description in that page. In fact, almost every culture has a representation of the concept under one name or another.  Look at these:
 * There are also other stories referring to such a creature as an "old hag". It's all quite fascinating. —Torchiest talkedits 12:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - prefer a merge with the folkloric creature - Nocnitsa not a bad target but I suspect there must be a broader term, though doesn't quite fit with mare (folklore) either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * new vote. MERGE after hours of research I don't have enough for Night Hags alone. But I do have plenty of research for Hags. So I say MERGE this to Hags. BUT I am requesting that this article NOT BE DELETED till Friday September 13.  I will not have the time to do the proper edits till then and honestly waiting one week is not an imposition to ask on anyone given the amount of work I have already done and still need to do.  Web Warlock (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and open a detailed discussion regarding the merge that Torchiest proposes above. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 7 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.
 * Keep and open a detailed discussion regarding the merge that Torchiest proposes above. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 7 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.