Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kostchtchie

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 List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Sandstein 19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kostchtchie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Necromancer and Paizo references already in the article are both reliable secondary sources independent of TSR/Wizards, so the GNG is met. A merge would not necessarily be inappropriate, but none has been attempted, making this premature. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that at all passes the notability guideline. Neither is significant in its coverage and neither provides any real world information. They're just both fiction/setting guides for games. It certainly passes WP:V, but it's a huge stretch to say it comes anywhere near passing WP:N. It seems more like you're objecting for the sake of objecting. There are no exact procedural rules, so saying there's really no justification in saying this is somehow premature in procedure. Procedurally, this shouldn't have ever been created in the first place without fitting proper criteria to split it out from a parent article. TTN (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A fictional element showing up in derivative games IS real-world impact. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're using these characters under some kind of license from WotC, so I'm really not sure if those even truly count as secondary. Even if that is the case, you're missing the significant coverage part. "Character x appears in game y by company z" is trivial at best, and it's certainly not enough to hold an article on its own. It's no better than "character x appears in game y by 'parent company'" in terms of establishing notability. TTN (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are they? It's an interesting assertion, but even if true wouldn't impair independence. Fictional elements used in other games aren't trivial references, because they are part of the game experience. I'm not sure what you're thinking by saying that, because the quote you're using as a template/example isn't what's happening here. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Citing that the character exists in a game is completely trivial in both the standards of the source and the standards of sourcing an article. It is literally just saying "this topic exists", that it is one of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of fictional minutia that make up the body of a larger work. It's no different from someone claiming something like "the character is mentioned in these eight analytical books", but each one is nothing but a single namedrop used in reference to the actual subject of the page. Both are completely worthless as sources. You'd have a point if this single character was handpicked from D&D for inclusion in another game, and that the status of being handpicked was documented in a reliable source. TTN (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What, you want an entire game centered around a particular fictional element in order for it to be notable? I know we disagree on notability of fictional elements, but that seems a preposterously high level of coverage to demand. I find what we have demonstrated in this case sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You're talking about one of many trivial characters in an essentially copied and pasted D&D setting under an official license. This single character is not at all special or notable in its inclusion. Looking at just the "Tome of Horrors Revised" index, there are 50-ish demons (out of 400 monsters), all of which I put into Google are directly ported from D&D. As far as I can tel, all or the great majority of the 400 monsters included in that book are also directly ported. That is truly the definition of trivial when comparing that single character to the entire scope of that publisher's work. If you truly think every single one of those warrants an article due to that, then the difference between our two viewpoints is too great for further discussion to have any merit. TTN (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I respectfully disagree with Jclemens; I'm not sure that appearing in third-party games establishes notability any more than a character's cameo in some other work establishes notability. Appearance in third-party games does suggest that there may be some level of notability (perhaps the character was discussed in reviews of the game, or was chosen because they were already iconic?) but we would need sources to demonstrate this. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to list of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Ayub407^talk 08:07, 24 August 2016 (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.