Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treant (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 merge to Ent. RL0919 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Treant
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Deleted once in 2007, but I guess the history was restored for it to be a redirect and it sprung back up. TTN (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ent as non-notable. The article fails WP:GNG and does not have independent notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge into Ent This creature is not independently notable from the creature it was based on. However, it is not currently mentioned in the potential target article. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect to Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) for lack of notability, which was already determined in the 2007 AfD. (The redirect was undone by an IP in 2011.) I'd rather not redirect this to Ent because we don't have a source for this, making it an OR or SYNTH problem. – sgeureka t•c 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gary Gygax admitted that the Treants were based on the Ents. Of course, I would not be opposed to the other redirect option. Either one would work. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Daranios and AugusteBlanqui below or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters would be a better merge target than Ent or Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons)? Not a very active user (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to Ent, per Susmuffin. I would be opposed to using the Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) as the redirect target as that article, itself, was one that was Redirected/Merged after an AFD, but then restored by a SPA IP a couple years later.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There appears to be rough consensus to merge, but I'll relist this in order for further discussion to ascertain the precise target of the merge.
 * Keep or, failing that, merge and redirect because in addition to the interviews present on the page the treant is talked about in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters and more extensively in The Monsters Know What They're Doing, so there is treatment in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ent, as the other proposed merge target, Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) is also currently in AfD. Not a very active user (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ent. No evidence of standalone notability, sources do not provide any evidence of passing GNG, the article contains nothing but a list of appearances combined with in-universe information. Secondary sources are useless if they do not discuss anything outside of an in-universe perspective. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The interviews cited in the article don't have in-universe content, neither does The Ashgate Encyclopedia...; The Monsters Know What They're Doing has sections which don't have in-universe perspective. That aside, I understand that a purely plot-summary article is no good in Wikipedia. What I did not see in WP:GNG is that secondary sources providing plot summaries do not contribute to notability. Can you point me to where it says that such secondary sources are useless in that regard? Thanks. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s been pretty well accepted that sources that since sources solely from an in universe perspective fail WP:PLOT, they do not contribute towards GNG. Maybe this is an interpretation thing, but countless people disregard secondary sources for being nothing but in-universe information. Since interviews are primary sources, they do not help pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. So I take away from that that discounting plot-summary information in secondary sources for notability is a common opinion, but neither a policy nor guideline. But as discussed, that is not a major point in this case anyway. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Ent, it's an appropriate target and we don't need a stand-alone Treant article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wonder if we need Treefolks in popular culture article or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ent is probably the best home for them for now, unless you can really find a lot of them: it would be nice to add a decently cited History section to Ent, showing precursors in folklore and mythology. We already have List of tree deities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Daranios has identified two important sources for the D&D treant (these two are in addition to countless lower-quality sources which nevertheless contribute to the Treant's GNG). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2020 (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.