Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinagon


 * 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 merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). Deryck C. 11:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Spinagon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article fails to explain why the subject of the article would be notable. In fact, it looks completely non-notable to me. Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, the article mentions both Dungeons & Dragons & Gary Gygax, both of which are immeasurably notable to the Role Playing genre of gaming. A distinct character, such as the Spinagon, that comes directly from the Monster Manual for the "D&D" series is easily notable for inclusion and meets WP:GNG for the author, the game(s), and it's inclusions (as above). Яεñ99 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Per WP:GNG, to be notable, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", with "independent" being defined as "excluding works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". The creature was made by Gary Gyrax (creator of D&D) for the D&D game, thus neither Gary Gyrax or the D&D game can be used as sources establishing notability since Gary Gyrax is obviously not independent from Gary Gyrax (ie "the creator of the subject"), neither is D&D independent from the subject, since the subject is a part of D&D and D&D is Gyrax's creation. As such, all sources present in the article are primary sources, which, as the name says, are just the various elements that built the creatures as such and without which the creature just would not exist. They are not secondary sources which provide "analytic or evaluative claims" on primary sources, and they are "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" thus not independent. Ren99, your comment does not establish that the creature has any hint of notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFDFORMAT, your comment does not "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". AfDs are not majority votes but "rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies", based not on "head count" but on "strength of argument". As such, could you please provide more arguments explaining why the article should be kept and not just stating you want the article to be kept ? That would avoid your comment to be discarded from the closing evaluation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (without prejudice to merge/redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters). Article fails WP:GNG. This is a creature from D&D and all the sources being component of the D&D game, they are primary sources on the subject without which the creature just would not exist. They are not secondary sources which would provide "analytic or evaluative claims" on primary sources, and since the creature is from D&D, the D&D sources are "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" thus not independent. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar only yieled the same kind of primary sources, so the creature is highly unlikely of every being notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). No independent sources to provide notability per WP:GNG, and I'm dubious that significant coverage in WP:RS exists. Probably not significant enough to warrant its own article, but probably deserves mention in the Devil article. Credible search term for anyone looking for the D&D creature. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Every source included in the article are first party sources. Doing some searches, I'm unable to find anything that is not also first party.  There is nothing in the article to indicate any sort of notability whatsoever, and without any sources showing some sort of real world importance or discussion, there's nothing to help establish any.  I suppose a wouldn't mind a merge to an appropriate article, but since this article contains no valid sources we would just be merging purely first party information to another article, which doesn't sound like that great of an idea to me.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete yet another critter article that blatantly fails the GNG -no coverage (let alone anything that can be considered "significant" ) by reliable third party sources upon which an article could be based. all sources are primary to the D&D franchise. and this is one of the critters that MIGHT have actually had coverage as there was the religious furor over "devils" in the game which caused them to appear in later editions with the jesus freak magnet of "devil" to be dropped from the name and the ludicrously silly Spinagon used in its place. --  The Red Pen of Doom  08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). Seems to be the best course of action here. Even in third part publishers this particular monster had a name change.  I have at least 7-8 books from non-affiliated publishers for this guy, but the best thing here is to merge. Web Warlock (talk) 19:00, 4 September 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.