Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There are policy based justifications for both delete and keep participants with some keep participants arguing that this topic is qualitatively different than other D&D topics. The delete editors argue that there are not the kind of out of universe sourcing necessary to establish notability. Given the already exhaustive discussion, as well as general fatigue expressed by some participants to D&D at AfD, I am not confident that relisting will make consensus clearer. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional creature, no evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG, PRIMARY sources only, pure WP:PLOT, BEFORE does not show better sources. One would think the "dragon" of D&D would be more likely to be notable - but it is not, not anymore than the dungeon part is (keep in mind that nobody is disputing the notability of general concepts of dragon, nor dungeon). Anyway, what we have here is a PLOT summary, publication history referenced to PRIMARY sources (1st edition had x types of dragons, 2nd edition add y more, etc.) and a pathetic reception section that relies on For Dummies and a SR list of monsters, neither of which provides any analysis beyond saying that dragons are high level monsters which need some effort and high level PCs to defeat, doh, what a revelation. WP is not a gaming guide. Unless someone can find sources that discuss the proper significance and reception of D&D dragons (such as how they inspired other writers and game developers, how they are analyzed from the literary theory, etc.) I don't think the topic is notable. List of subspecies and which edition they were created plus 'sky is blue' reception saying that they are pretty but big and scary monsters is not enough for an encyclopedia. PS. I'll repeat that the concept of Dragon in D&D is not much more notable than the concept of Dungeon (Dungeons & Dragons), and fortunately nobody created an article on that; Dungeon states "Dungeons are common elements in fantasy literature, related tabletop, and video games. The most famous examples are the various Dungeons & Dragons media." and this is about as much as we should say about D&D dragons in the article on dragon, which could be a redirect for this per WP:PRESERVE. PPS. One could also argue that we should have article about Star (Star Wars) since the word appears in the name of this big franchise... :P Seriously, the point is that dragons are even less central to D&D than dungeons, since while pretty much all D&D campaigns feature dungeons, much fewer feature actual dragons... . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is fancruft, as I mentioned in an earlier AfD. Just because it's in the name doesn't make the in-universe concept individually notable. Fails WP:GNG as well as being WP:ALLPLOT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank vote I don't think I am able to judge if this particular article should be deleted or not, but... I would like to point out that there are a large number of WP-articles about D&D monsters. Should they be nominated for deletion too? RhinoMind (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RhinoMind: Most will be, some have already. But experience shows that they need to be discussed one by one, as group nominations are problematic (some people object pro forma to them and ask for one by one discussions). Feel free to PROD or AfD anything you think should be discussed for deletion or redirection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, thanks for the info.
        Nah, I'm not a deletion-guy. My strategy would be to guide and redirect editors to the right fora, if I think something is misplaced. RhinoMind (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nominating everything at once would cause a WP:TRAINWRECK if there happens to be one that is actually notable. Or there is just the assertion that there is. And no doubt prompt a huge discussion about wanting to delete everything wholesale just because the nominator doesn't like it instead of judge everything by its own merits.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirecting is good per WP:PRESERVE. Unfortunately, some people dispute a redirect, and then we have to go through the deletion route, which IMHO too often uses hard deletion instead of soft deletion (redirect). But that's what we get when people dispute redirects, sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am wondering why anyone would consider that people, who have rejected a proposal for deletion in favor of an AfD discussion, would prefer a total deletion instead of a redirect in case the AfD did not end with "Keep". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, there's too much "plot". But there are secondary sources: As far as I understand from the description and comments, on Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry, that is an independent secondary source. So is ...for Dummies and the two online lists. There is also some more information on the dragons' origins out there, not yet in the article. Also, the concept was taken over by a second publisher, Paizo. Daranios (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article from Aadry DeVarque has been included now. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This articles has huge WP:GAMEGUIDE problems, but I think the reception section might be useful for a "Monsters in D&D" article and be merged there. However, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons doesn't even link to Dragons. Does anyone know of a better parent article? – sgeureka t•c 08:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something which is central to one of the best-known games ever created. Very clearly notable. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable (especially potentially notable topics being prodded to attempt to get them deleted without discussion), as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've added one peer-reviewed source to the lead which mentions D&D dragons specifically and there are many more out there. I'll add a few more over the next day or two. A total of three new sources (two academic, the other the key moral panic text of the 1990s) to the lead. Tag for improvement and retain. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but this isn't an encyclopaedia article. If we were to reduce what has been discussed about this in reliable secondary sources we might have a mere blurb. The vast majority of this article is a WP:GAMEGUIDE and even if it weakly passes WP:GNG, WP:NOT overrides WP:GNG especially per WP:INDISCRIMINATE #1 - the article barely summarises the topic using primary sources and is of no use to anyone who doesn't play this game. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All this is, is a massive extension of of Monster Manual errata. This, minus the vast fluff about tungsten dragons and such, and Dragon (Middle-earth) should be combined with others if out there into a Dragons in fiction or similar. ValarianB (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above notes about existing sources, or failing that merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters rather than outright deletion. BOZ (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect unless substantial sources are provided. I feel they deserve some attention somewhere, but I don't know where. Something like "Mythology of D&D" presented from a real world perspective would probably be a good topic, maybe like Mythology of Carnivàle. TTN (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I feel this just barely passes the threshold for notability, though it needs to be entirely rewritten as all info currently on the page is considered inappropriate under WP:GAMEGUIDE. Devonian Wombat talk 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this isn't the best article, but there are secondary sources (even if they are tricky to search for...), and dragons in D&D are surely some of the most important dragons in pop culture, making their way into discussions about dragons more broadly (of which there are plenty). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you want Obviously notable, but I'm not going to spend 40 hours making this a GA to protect it. Please state your real motivations with each nom, such as "I hate fiction articles". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peregrine Fisher, it apparently worked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menzoberranzan (2nd nomination), but should that much effort even have to be necessary to get an article kept? And even if we had a team of people with the same level of skill at finding sources and integrating them into articles, it would still be overwhelming at the rate they are being put up for deletion. I don't want good editors to burn out on one or two articles when that's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with your bare hands. :) BOZ (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The deletion nomination itself reads like a WP:POINTy essay. I and other editors have added at least four new secondary sources to the article so let's hope the closer reviews this. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's review the sources added first, shall we? 1)A geocities list of sources, pretty meta and pretty low qualities (c'mon, geocities?). 2) An academic source that mentions D&D dragons in passing "Dungeons & Dragons allows players to fight its fictional dragons (Tiamat being one of the most notable) and "slay their psychic dragons" as well." Well, that's is WP:SKYISBLUE, and the entire sentence with its ref should be removed for being pretty much pointless; the dragons are not discussed in-depth here, they are just a passing example; that D&D may be used for psychotherapist purposes is interesting, what monsters are used in related adventures is irrelevant and doesn't make them encyclopedic unless there is an in-depth discussion of 'why dragons make better tools for therapy than zombies or goblins', and I don't see this. 3) A book, with no page number, used to reference a claim that " D&D Dragons, specifically their "dungeon ecology," have implications for the literary theory of fantasy writing." That is actually more interesting, but no page number suggest this comes from a blurb or such, more in depth analysis of this source is needed, but it is promising (it's not like I want to delete it for fun, if we can show notability I'd be happy to see this rescued). 4) Another claim "D&D dragons also featured as targets of the moral panic surrounding the game." that is interesting, but again sourced to books with no page numbers. 5) a reference added to in-universe plot, so not relevant for our consideration. Now, if you can properly reference 3) and 4) with page numbers and show they are more than in-passing, we may be able to turn this around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • 3), 4): Um, you are referring to Dungeons and dragons and philosophy, The truth about Dungeons & dragons and Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds, right? A page number is already given for each of these, isn't it? 1) I have changed the link to another site (possibly the original), which is also old but not geocities, so maybe that's more to your liking. Is "meta" a bad thing here? And I don't know about low quality - is the article erroneous?
There is still Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry which seems to be a non-fiction third party source.
I also would ask to include the sources of the split-off articles Chromatic dragon and Metallic dragon with regard to the notability discussion. There is at least one additional secondary source there, as I have added from an Envoyer article. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added one more source. Daranios (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or TNT delete The in-universe descriptions and game data currently in the article at present are relatively well-cited to "quasi-secondary" sources (books, magazines, etc. that provide somewhat critical "real-world" coverage of the topic but that are still published by TSR, Wizards, or some fan publisher with a subordinate relationship to the company that owns the property); my gut tells me that the topic is notable enough to merit its own article (certainly moreso than any other individual DnD monster), as long as articles on fictional topics are still something we are doing and are prioritizing over articles on classical Japanese poets that I am apparently forced to work on all on my own. I personally would prefer that we had a centralized discussion about whether we allow these kinds of articles rather than the present ad hoc AFD nomination of random single articles, but if this is how we are doing it then I'm going to have to go with my gut on each individual topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Having lived the D&D craze of the 1980s, I can assure you that dragons are a big part of Dungeons and Dragons and here is what I found with a New York Times search: [1] [2] Samboy (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep, with no prejudice against a renomination. If there's a textbook example of how NOT to propose an article for deletion, this should be it. It's sarcastic, contemptuous and unnecessarily antagonistic. Whether or not the notability arguments are valid, this is the literal definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)&oldid=930623373"