Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)
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 redirect. There is no consensus to delete this article, and, while there is strong consensus that it does not warrant stand-alone status, there is not clear consensus to support a merge. There is also insufficient unique content to warrant a merge, given that the information is now duplicated without GFDL infringement at Qilin already. The target of the redirect may, of course, be altered at a future point if a more appropriate D&D specific location is designated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)
Pretty standard Dungeons & Dragons monster, there are a few very similar to this. No evidence of any significance or third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We were discussing what to do with the monster articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons; not sure why you're not letting that process work itself out first? Anyway, redirect to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Magical beast for the moment. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are working on a better destination to redirect articles like this, but I don't know if it will be ready before this AFD is over. BOZ (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Qilin which is the main article on this beast. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge as is always preferred. WP policy is that merging is preferable to deletion. And this can be closed right now, for a suggested merge doesnt belong in Afd in the first place. DGG (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I knew no where this could appropriately be merged to, and do not support the merge proposed above. From experience, the editors of mythology related articles do not appreciate piles of 'the monster in every fantasy universe ever' type sections, and rightly so- they are useless sections. If we are not going to have the huge sections with trivial information from first party sources, why should we allow the D&D mention specifically. I personally support an outright delete, no merge. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editors of that article evidently do appreciate such material. Please see Qilin#Contemporary media references which includes much similar material but is currently missing coverage of D&D. Mythology is not an ancient lost art. Modern storytelling such as RPGs and movies uses the same tropes in such cases and so it is appropriate to cover the topic in a unified way. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, perhaps in this case a mention (not a full on merge) is appropriate, but I know in many other cases when the trivial information about the monster's appearance in a load of fantasy games was not appreciated and certainly did not improve the article. However, as this is a useless search term for a redirect, I still support deletion once a mention has been made in the main article. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a useless search term - it can be used to redirect to the appropriate section of the Qilin article. Moreover there seems no danger of confusion within article namespace. Confusion mainly arises because of the different transliterations and usages and so we should have many redirects to cover all of these. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, strange how that article mentions all those other versions, but not the D&D one? BOZ (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with them either, but adding the D&D version won't help. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Qilin#Contemporary media references needs further trimming (than I did); you can help. Nice link, thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. That section entirely inappropriate per WP:TRIVIA Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Qilin#Contemporary media references needs further trimming (than I did); you can help. Nice link, thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with them either, but adding the D&D version won't help. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, strange how that article mentions all those other versions, but not the D&D one? BOZ (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a useless search term - it can be used to redirect to the appropriate section of the Qilin article. Moreover there seems no danger of confusion within article namespace. Confusion mainly arises because of the different transliterations and usages and so we should have many redirects to cover all of these. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, perhaps in this case a mention (not a full on merge) is appropriate, but I know in many other cases when the trivial information about the monster's appearance in a load of fantasy games was not appreciated and certainly did not improve the article. However, as this is a useless search term for a redirect, I still support deletion once a mention has been made in the main article. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editors of that article evidently do appreciate such material. Please see Qilin#Contemporary media references which includes much similar material but is currently missing coverage of D&D. Mythology is not an ancient lost art. Modern storytelling such as RPGs and movies uses the same tropes in such cases and so it is appropriate to cover the topic in a unified way. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I knew no where this could appropriately be merged to, and do not support the merge proposed above. From experience, the editors of mythology related articles do not appreciate piles of 'the monster in every fantasy universe ever' type sections, and rightly so- they are useless sections. If we are not going to have the huge sections with trivial information from first party sources, why should we allow the D&D mention specifically. I personally support an outright delete, no merge. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and add a section regarding it's existence in D&D and copy the sources over. Celarnor (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — non-notable fictional critter with no out-of-universe sources. Specifically, do not merge this to Qilin; that whole Contemporary media references section is an unencyclopaedic blight on that article — a puffed-up trivia section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In what way is it unencyclopedic? It lists references in contemporary media, which is commonly encountered with mythological figures. References are what make encyclopedia encyclopedic. If anything, not merging it would make it a less complete encyclopedic entry. Celarnor (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with Jack on this one. If there are third party sources documenting those creatures in those specific fictional universes, then yes, they are notable as a reincarnation of the mythic creature. However, if they don't, then including them is a bad idea. On our article on socks, would we list every fictional character who wears them? Perhaps those who are famous for wearing them ('famous' meaning that third party sources have mentioned it) but not every one that does. See where I am coming from? J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing two meanings of the word reference. Encyclopaedic references are citations of sources. Hannah Montana saying she has a white cat she named Ki-rin in some episode of a tv show is a trivial reference.
- My concern here — and I know that a proper place to take this at some point is a policy or guideline page — is that a merge of a non-notable pop-culture article has been proposed to a real article without anyone at or associated with the target article having been given a heads-up about the debate. I feel that no such merge result can be viewed as legitimate without parties interested in the target article being involved in the debate
- This D&D dragon amounts to one of thousands of critters for D&D; it warrants no more than a mention in a list.
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- In what way is it unencyclopedic? It lists references in contemporary media, which is commonly encountered with mythological figures. References are what make encyclopedia encyclopedic. If anything, not merging it would make it a less complete encyclopedic entry. Celarnor (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no non-trivial secondary coverage; fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Possibly a candidate for merging to a D&D list; not suitable for merging into a real-world mythology article as it would essentially form a pop-culture trivia section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Agree that a merge would simply create trivia and should be avoided. Eusebeus (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Plus, referenced article, so passes Notability and Verifiability guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't pass our notability guidelines, they're primary sources, not reliable ones. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias use both primary and secondary sources. Encyclopedias in the early years (look at the first editions of the Enlightenment Encyclopedie, for example, had articles composed entirely of primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with our reliable source or notability policies, you should raise it on the talk pages or at the village pump. But, before you do, think about what you're saying. From where I am, it looks as if you are saying that anything with primary sources is notable, which means that every publication, ever, is notable. I don't think you actually believe that. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think I would say that "everything with a primary source is notable," but I do think that WIkipedia is not like any encyclopedia (the First pillar even says as much) and thus we should not merely be a Britannica clone, but that we should catalog as much of human knowledge as possible and I do take the bit about containing elements of specialized enycclopedias quite literally, i.e. any article on a topic that appears in any published specialized encyclopedia should be fair game for inclusion on Wikipedia. Because there are indeed multiple D&D encyclopedias, whatever in them is literally consistent with "encyclopedic content" and can be verified. So, a report card or something of mine may be a primary source and yet it doesn't mean that I'm notable enough to have an article (yet, at least :)), but a character that is reasonably familiar to large numbers of people who are not just from one particular locale and to large numbers of people over time, I think is justifiably notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with our reliable source or notability policies, you should raise it on the talk pages or at the village pump. But, before you do, think about what you're saying. From where I am, it looks as if you are saying that anything with primary sources is notable, which means that every publication, ever, is notable. I don't think you actually believe that. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias use both primary and secondary sources. Encyclopedias in the early years (look at the first editions of the Enlightenment Encyclopedie, for example, had articles composed entirely of primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't pass our notability guidelines, they're primary sources, not reliable ones. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Disagree that it's trivial per se. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why? J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find the Merge arguments others have made compelling, and believe that due to the number of mythological references and the length of time this creature has appeared in D&D set it apart from the rest of the D&D monster AFD's. To put it bluntly, this is the only monster listed that I had any idea what it is. That's an admittedly subjective gauge of triviality, of course. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, seeing what you've added to the Qilin article, I'll switch my opinion to Merge--adding that brings the article in line with what we'd expect from, say, stormbringer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find the Merge arguments others have made compelling, and believe that due to the number of mythological references and the length of time this creature has appeared in D&D set it apart from the rest of the D&D monster AFD's. To put it bluntly, this is the only monster listed that I had any idea what it is. That's an admittedly subjective gauge of triviality, of course. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why? J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this recent obituary which specifically highlights the Kirin as an example of the way in which D&D embraces much culture and folklore. The Kirin is notable and the connection with D&D is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Upon seeing the reference, I agree. I recommend you add a mention, along with the reference, to the article on the mythical creature. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that Colonel Warden hadn't done so yet, so I made a tentative insertion of the article he referenced into the article. I hope that helps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really, that reference speaks to Gygax's notability, not to that of a D&D Ki-rin or the Sphinx (anyone going to cite it there?); it is a trivial reference; two examples out of thousands. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think that changes the notability for the D&D monster- it still isn't notable. However, I feel that mention means it warrants a mention in the article on the mythological creature. I added it in this case, I didn't add for the others. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The main thing is that if we have agreed that the Ki-rin and the reference are worth including in the other article, then we need to redirect this article to that article without deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This can be redirected there for now, but it will later be redirected to the monster lists that we at the WikiProject are working on at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Please just keep in mind that if anything is merged, that we need to keep the contrib history from this article public, so it would need to be a redirect sans deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It wasn't merged- I took the source and added something to the main article, I didn't take anything from the monster article. There is no reason to keep the article history, and it is a poor redirect anyway. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a good redirect since it's a valid search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a good search term for someone seeking information on the monster, but anyone typing this in would be uninterested in the mythological creature. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a good redirect since it's a valid search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't merged- I took the source and added something to the main article, I didn't take anything from the monster article. There is no reason to keep the article history, and it is a poor redirect anyway. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. Please just keep in mind that if anything is merged, that we need to keep the contrib history from this article public, so it would need to be a redirect sans deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This can be redirected there for now, but it will later be redirected to the monster lists that we at the WikiProject are working on at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The main thing is that if we have agreed that the Ki-rin and the reference are worth including in the other article, then we need to redirect this article to that article without deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think that changes the notability for the D&D monster- it still isn't notable. However, I feel that mention means it warrants a mention in the article on the mythological creature. I added it in this case, I didn't add for the others. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Upon seeing the reference, I agree. I recommend you add a mention, along with the reference, to the article on the mythical creature. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this recent obituary which specifically highlights the Kirin as an example of the way in which D&D embraces much culture and folklore. The Kirin is notable and the connection with D&D is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 15 March 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.
