Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaad


 * 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. Trusilver 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Slaad

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable stock character from Dungeons & Dragons. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this "Product Identity". This article fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF, so there is no benefit from keeping any of this vacuous fancruft. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment again, Gavin hasn't read the article properly. It's not a stock character; it's a fantasy race. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wizards of the Coast, they are creatures, but since the term stock charcter also covers stock creatures, it makes little difference.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? "creature" is more-or-less synonymous with "fantasy race".  I agree that a stock creature would be a stock character; but this isn't a stock creature but rather a race of creatures.  That's not the same thing.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note my comment here: . BOZ (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a specific member, of a specific sub-race of Slaad, for a different aspect of the game. You are not showing that you have done much research really at all. Web Warlock (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Its one of 2,600 stock characters from the D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Web Warlock (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Gavin's poorly researched nomination notwithstanding, there is no third-party coverage here, so the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please recall the question is if the topic fails WP:N, not a article. (At the moment the article passing WP:N by a wide margin, but probably not when you wrote this... Hobit (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Gavin, you really should know something about the article and its sources before leaping in and trying to delete something. Perhaps you should focus your time on articles that you have an understanding of the material they're about? Plus, you know, it might help if you discuss things and ask specific questions or suggest ways to improve an article rather than just slapping on your usual stock of inappropriate templates. That out of the way, there are sources not published by TSR/WotC that talk about or reference the Slaadi. The deletion nomination is flawed, and its only applicable complaint can be solved by a few added references. Give me a few days and I should be able to have the time to add some.Shemeska (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The third party Tome of Horrors from Necromancer games is another slaadi reference. And a slaad and a slaad associated artifact (which the plot revolves around) appear in "Downer: Volume 1 - Wandering Monster" and "Downer: Volume 2 - Fools Errand" by Kyle Stanley Hunter, neither of which were published by TSR/WotC. If someone has a moment to add any of those as references, please feel free.Shemeska (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done my research, and there are no reliable secondary sources for this stock character. I think you may be under the mistaken assumption that a mention on a fansite or a passing reference in a third party publication is a reliable secondary source, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. Evidence that this character has notability outside of its primary source (a role playing game) needs to be shown by "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". As this article is composed of in universe plot summary, sources that support the in universe content do not support your assertion of notabilty.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You have not done any research and I question whether you actually know the meaning of the word. Had you done research you would have found ther third party publications, the entries in various magazines OR maybe, if you were very clever, seen the articles relating these creatures to old superstions of toads that swallow gemstones. But you didn't so obviously you didn't actually research anything. Web Warlock (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep mostly because the nominator is seriously out of order here. The nomination makes errors of fact: Slaad is not a "character", stock or not.  This shows that the nominator has not bothered to read the article in question (which is a pattern that Gavin Collins has frequently demonstrated before in his numerous assembly-line tags and AfD nominations), or has read without understanding.  Following the misstatement is little more than a strung-together list of acronyms, taken almost verbatim from Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, where it is shown as an example of what not to do.  I'd like to remind everyone involved that the nominator is known for gaming the system to make a point, as his record will bear out.  Few of his machine-gun AfD nominations have stuck; they only serve to make the Wikipedia experience frantic and miserable for a lot of bona-fide editors. Freederick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the article itself, it is well written, lists for its references printed publications not only by the game originator, and has massive Ghits, not only in the context of the originating publication. It satisfies the notability for fiction guidelines; as for the other acronyms listed by the nom, (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL, etc.) I won't bother addressing them as they are clearly not germane to the matter in question.  I would also like to point out that it falls to the nominator to substantiate why the acronyms quoted are relevant, rather than just listing them.  I could list two dozen random acronyms here, then sit back and wait for other disputants to answer the accusations. Freederick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article needs a couple of references, maybe a little bit of editing, but that is it. The nominator clearly has no real intrest in this article or the subject matter and is only looking to increase the number of deletions he can aquire.  Thus I am also calling this a Bad Faith nomination. Web Warlock (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per all previous Keep votes. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for absence of reliable sources to provide an out-of-universe perspective, lack of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:EEMIV. Lack of real-world notability. Yeah, the people who play D&D might say it's notable, but to other people, it's a character in a game. It is not worthy of it's own article.Undeath (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it's notable among a real-world subculture, then it's notable. Period. There are many sections of Wikipedia that are of interest only to specialists. You've fallen prey to a variant of a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, except you don't present any actual evidence that "other people" believe as you say they do. If your imaginary friends would like to vote on this talk page, they can speak for themselves. Until they do, I'm calling your argument Appeal to Hallucination. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment even so, it takes multiple independent sources to show that it's notable within that subculture, and the article doesn't have those. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has four independent sources. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Which four? Remember that Yamara was first published in Dragon, so it's not independent.  Can you provide any way to show that the print refs aren't just trivial mentions? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I edited the article to show the monster's real-world cultural impact. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While well-intentioned, the material you've added is not cited to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources still do not assert notability. They do not cite third party sources.Undeath (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Tome of Horrors, the Downer novel, and the two webcomics I cited are all third-party sources. You don't have to lie to make friends. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added the Downer and Yamara print collections to the bibliography. These are third-party sources, people. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment a strip first published in TSR/WotC's Dragon can't be considered independent; and the Downer link is broken. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you cite that "Slaad has become a byword" for similar creatures? You are making a generalization based on its use in Yamara and Shadowgirls -- but where has some sort of third-party source articulated a connection (rather than a coincidence) between the two? If the creators of those comics, for example, had published somewhere that they drew inspiration from the D&D term, that would cut it -- but simply pointing toward primary sources is unsufficient. Additionally, calling "a race of monsters similar to" Lovecraft's -- who says their similar? Your impression of any similarity is original research; it needs a third-party citation articulating a similarity (whether deliberate or otherwise). Ditto the description of the Downer material being about "Slaad-like" creatures -- was this a deliberate choice? A coincidence? Who thinks their similar? This sort of synthesis needs a substantiating source. lastly: correct, one does not need "to lie to make friends," but editors need to assume good faith -- as I've done with your edits -- and maintain a civil tone when editing, which your above comment does not do. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You make some good points, EEMIV, and I've edited the article accordingly. None of your points change the fact that the third-party sources exist, however, which fatally undermines the whole argument for deletion. Note that I didn't say "slaad-like" creatures; I said "slaad-created" - the reference to slaadi is specific in the book, not surmised by me. Because I love you, I'll assume good faith, but read an article more carefully next time before critiquing it, if you would be so kind. Percy, the link works for me, and Yamara remains a 3rd-party source published by a company not associated with TSR, Inc. or Wizards of the Coast, one of four that I've mentioned. Its original appearance is immaterial, as the fact that Steve Jackson Games picked it up shows that it has influence beyond its parent company. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread it. However, the "sources," again, are primary sources -- can you provide a secondary source that asserts that "slaad"'s use in other media is based on the D&D use? Even if you can, I count six sentences that connect this fictional material to the real world -- this is not sufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For crissake, four independent sources (five, if you count Paizo Publishing, which you should) is a more solid foundation than many unquestioned Wikipedia articles have (for example, Nelle Wilson Reagan only has three). You're being unreasonable. How many sentences would meet your arbitrary threshold? Seven? Eight? One hundred? Give me an estimate so that I can stop darkly suspecting you'll never be satisfied. Pop culture is Wikipedia's strength, and trying to deny that is counter-productive and silly. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. Added yet another 3rd party source, the Hacklopedia of Beasts Volume VII. Can we consider the "not notable" canard thoroughly debunked yet? -- Poisonink (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't Be Stronger Keep. If this encyclopedia wants to cover D&D at all, this article needs to stay. Slaad are perhaps the single most important of the many monsters actually invented by the D&D game (as opposed to borrowed from mythology), and has appeared in hundreds of books since then. Further, the nominator shows (as he did with the Death Knight AfD) that he has absolutely no capacity to judge whether an article is important to the topic of roleplaying, because he has no knowledge or experience with roleplaying at all (what the heck is a "stock character" with regards to roleplaying??). However, since only references seem to matter, | here (paragraphs 5 and 6) is a discussion on the slaad and its artistic development over the course of the game's life from GameSpy.com (a website that is not even a roleplaying game site). We also can include more reference to how it was created in the pages of White Dwarf's Fiend Factory by scifi author Charles Stross, though that is complicated by the fact that Stross chooses not to discuss it anymore, on account of not holding the copyrights. I'll keep looking for more, though I suspect many are print rather than online. Until then, I suggest everyone who wants to keep this article add an "Appearance in other media" entry, to make it more clear that the slaad has grown beyond its original use as just another monster. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the material from Gamespy (which I can't access) offers material for an encyclopedic treatment and is integrated with the article, if the recently added "cultural impact" material is cited to secondary sources rather than the comics/books themselves, then that would probably be sufficient to retain the content, either in this article or some sort of D&D List of creatures. The plot summary, too, needs to be substantially reduced. --EEMIV (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. I added more on the slaad's inspiration from a Charles Stross interview, added some context with the author's other writings, and I added a section on slaadi in other media. Are you satisfied yet? The question of how much "real world" content is included in the article is separate from the article's notability, of course, which has by now been thoroughly established. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hastily adding material that isn't properly sourced doesn't help the article. A weblog is not a reliable source, although it's nice to see a quote (I suppose a copy-and-paste of a block quote is better than nothing) about development. Has anyone besides the creator cared to comment on the creatures? Gamespy might have (Ig8887? Can anyone else access the article?) Is there any critical response? After review WP:RS, please see WP:WAF. Additionally, there still are no secondary sources for the material you added earlier. This AfD is only a few hours old; if you think the material is out there, please add it according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, for some reason, creating a link to the article doesn't work right. But you can copy-and-paste the URL, which is "http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540509p2.html" to get to it. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now that automatically-generated link right above this works. Weird. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. I added yet another independent third-party source, the first Order of the Stick print collection. Your criticisms are well-taken, EEMIV, but the rationale for deletion was non-notability, and with eight or so independent sources (not counting the blog), even the biggest haters should be mollified. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if you can substantiate by citing secondary sources rather than primary sources (i.e. cite a review of the comic rather than the comic, cite a critique of the sourcebook rather than the sourcebook), then your claims of notability will be substantiated. See above my comments to Ig8887 about what I'd accept to keeping the content, either in this article or for merging into a List of... --EEMIV (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand; the OOTS comic itself is a secondary source, because it is a comic whose purpose is to comment and criticise on the D&D game. The creature's appearance in D&D is the primary source; the author of OOTS comments on the slaad's position in the D&D mythology through his comic and commentary is the secondary source. As far as anything else, several people seem to be working as fast as they can to upgrade this article, so maybe you should reserve judgment until we get it written. As you said, it's only a few hours old, the final decision won't be in the next ten minutes. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ig8887. The primary source is the original Fiend Folio, or the article in White Dwarf magazine (not a TSR or WotC source, by the way) that preceded it. When other companies add or parody (as in Yamara, Order of the Stick, and HackMaster) slaadi, they are commenting on the monster, either on its role in the game (OotS), the appearance of the monster (Yamara), or the game in general (HackMaster), or simply affirming their love of the classic monster in a way they are certainly not required to (The Tome of Horrors, the Demon Stone video game, and HackMaster). This is 2nd-party commentary, and cannot reasonably be construed as anything else. The cultural impact within this specific subculture cannot honestly be denied. -- Poisonink (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with Ig8887, a comic cannot provide evidence that this character has notability outside of its primary source (a role playing game). As stated above, the source needs to show "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". I think that when it comes to the definition or reliable secondary souces, fans of role-playing games may have a tenuous grasp on the difference between the real-world and the fantasy world of comics, game guides and fansites. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for generalizing all roleplayers as people who have a tenuous grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy. I appreciate it, as I'm sure the millions of other people who engage in the hobby do too. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think Gavin means to say he disagrees with Ig8887. Regardless of his uncivil generalization of all RPG fans, comics and roleplaying games are the primary means of livelihood for many people. Expecting a RPG monster to have impact beyond the realm of fiction, commentary on fiction, or RPG supplements (i.e., a slaad saved the life of a small child in Virginia) is a ridiculous burden to impose, and not something required of any other articles on fictional characters on Wikipedia. The article in question does offer detail on the work's development and impact, which suggests that Gavin either has not bothered to read the article in question since it was edited or that he's deliberately ignoring these aspects. -- Poisonink (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly; if Doonesbury can be seen as a secondary source on real-world events, then a comic whose primary mode is to comment and criticize on the world of D&D is a secondary source on the fictional world of RPGs. The comic is not part of the D&D game, cannot be used in playing the D&D game, and exists solely to make comment on things within the D&D game. It does so with parody, a legitimate form of commentary. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep "vacuous fancruft" shows that the nomination is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Adequate sourcing and notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, I do like it; there are some great lines in the plot summary that make me laugh:
 * "If either a red slaad or blue slaad infects an arcane spellcaster, the host will spawn a green slaad...".
 * "If the death slaad survives a century, it turns into the demonic white slaad."
 * I have a question: if a green slaad, white and red slaad get together, do they make a slaad tricolore? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, just Ceasar slaad. I couldn't resist, sorry. :) BOZ (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep No idea what article looked like before, but it's clearly well sourced now. Could use a fair bit of clean up. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlike most D&D monster articles, this one has references from beyond the limited publishing sphere of WotC and TSR. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gavin's behavior & excuses for deletion are getting old.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and ban Gavin Collins. im just getting so sick and tired of his approach of delete rather than fix. its nice he has proof that the article may or may not have "reliable" resources, but he refuses to EVER see if any exist and try to add them himself. in Gavin's Wikipedia they would only be articles he likes. sorry, but i see personal agenda in his motives and they do not appear to be something to help wikipedia, but rather to destroy articles. you win Gavin. destroy wikipedia all you want. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not presenting any keep rationale... only incivility and personal attacks that may earn you a block. If you think it worthwhile, I recommend posting at AN/I instead and see what admins think. User:Dorftrottel 14:04, January 29, 2008
 * Dorf, you're saying that because you are unaware of the broader context. After months of continuous, ill-informed and disruptive  harassment from this user, I fully support Shadzar's position--he is right on the money.  Freederick (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, primarily for laudable efforts to write with the real world as primary frame of reference, accompanyied by the best sources available. User:Dorftrottel 14:04, January 29, 2008
 * Keep as article is sourced and concerns an aspect of a notable work of fiction. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you just look at the ref section, or did you look into the refs themselves? Which ones do you find the most and the least convincing, respectively? As "major aspect ectpp.": According to WP:FICT that's not in and of itself a reason to have a separate article; only if the main article gets overlong. User:Dorftrottel 02:17, January 30, 2008
 * It's good that there is a combination of interviews, online sources, and published books. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i think therein lies the problem. does D&D adhere strictly to fiction? while the game is telling a story of sorts, does it make everything about the game fiction? never in 30+ years have i seen D&D put into a proper niche than as a game. while i think there is a LARGE bit of fiction derived from it and vice versa does D&D solely belong to the category of fiction? not in the terms as it is not fact, non-fiction, but in the terms of D&D isnt a story in and of itself. each of these articles should be judged on how they are presented in relation to D&D the game rather than just as characters in a novel. maybe by properly figuring out what policies and guidelines fit with D&D and its many aspects would help identify the problems with articles related to it, and even the other roleplaying games and such that are similar but "break the molds" of standard board and card games. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is sourced and nominator appears to have either not read or not understood the subject. A fictional race is not a character, let alone a stock character.  Based on the nominator's unique use of the term stock character,  hobbit would be a stock character from Lord of the Rings, Klingon would be a stock character from Star Trek, and wookie would be a stock character from Star Wars. And with the nominator's suggesting that people disagreeing with him have a tenuous grasp on the real world, he is being anything but civil. Edward321 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - appeared across 3 decades of diverse D&D material, created by notable author and will have referneces outside this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a very much recurring bunch of jolly outsiders, peppered around a giant bunch of D&D material. If it's in Monster Manual, the chances are it's found in a bazillion other places, official D&D material or not! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator sites: WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:WEASEL, WP:WAF, and fancruft. It should be pointed out that NONE of those are reasons for delete or to bring an AFD. Web Warlock (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - And, yet, they are still routinely used as such, by the same people who prefer to pretend that Wikipedia Guidelines are really Wikipedia Policies. Unfortunately, sometimes (but not always) some administrators agree with them. We'll see on this one: we're currently looking at 16 keeps vs. 3 deletes. As I was reminded recently on Articles for deletion/Death knight, an overwhelming number of Keep votes guarantees nothing, but we've seen the ultimate result on that debate haven't we? BOZ (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (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.