Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blink dog

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blink dog

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

Non-notable DnD creature. All sources are owned by the publisher of the game it is from. Fails WP:N — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons unless some third-party sources are found. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better to redirect it to where it actually ought to be mentioned (and indeed already is), in List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. It was hard to tell where to more accurately redirect this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - where was the discussion to delete this? There is nothing on the talk page to indicate that this page should be deleted. Let's have a discussion first and see if any sources can be turned up. I have turned up 100s of sources in the past (check my logs) so they are there, I just don't have to time to find them all by the end of the week. Web Warlock (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to discuss anything on the talk page before bringing it to AfD. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - iconic D&D monster which has appeared prominently in every edition of the game with the exception of the most recent - all the way back to the original 1974 edition, to the third edition which ended in 2008. I trust Webwarlock's judgement that sources can be found, and agree that discussion should have happened rather than taking it straight to AFD. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books appears to have some relevant, non primary-source hits for this. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Web Warlock and Jclemens, it is not likely that establishing notability by coverage will be difficult. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I think it'll be practically impossible. Not counting primary sources, there are about 2, very passing, mentions in that google books search JClemens linked. One could find further references by looking at print sources. (White Dwarf magazine for example is a magazine that's independent of WOTC and will certainly contain relevant discussion from some issue before issue 93. But its independence could be challenged because at the time of publication it was a house organ of TSR, the then publishers of D&D.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, White Dwarf has always been published by Games Workshop, which is not TSR. For a long time (before Warhammer got popular) it covered D&D, but never exclusively, always along with other, non-TSR RPGs: Traveller, RuneQuest, etc. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The early history of Games Workshop and TSR (UK) Ltd. is murky, convoluted and substantially intertwined. The two organisations tended to contain the same people at a senior level, particularly in the 1970s which is the time we're talking about. Games Workshop were at the time of White Dwarf 17, the British importers for D&D. In 1981 the relatively newly-formed TSR (UK) Ltd. published a book called the Fiend Folio which comprised submissions people had made to White Dwarf.
GW and TSR (now WOTC) have a long history of being rival corporations, but that's not how they started and it's not how things were at the time of publication.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Companies in the same business interact. Consider Intel and Microsoft, for example; in some ways associates, in some ways rivals. They're still independent companies. But even by #17 White Dwarf was not a solely TSR games mag. Here: RuneQuest scenarios starting with #14, and Traveller articles since #9. Would happen to know if Games Workshop were also the British importers for RuneQuest, and most other RPGs? I wouldn't be surprised. They were the biggest British RPG company, and, I believe, still are. --GRuban (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here, White Dwarf #1. [1] Last page. That particular issue only covers D&D, but on the last page, you can see that Games Workshop distributed Chivalry & Sorcery (FGU), Dungeons & Dragons (TSR), and Traveller (GDW), which were, at the time the main Roleplaying Games extant, among a number of board and war games. D&D was the most popular RPG by an order of magnitude, but Games Workshop owed no special debt to TSR beyond that. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you and I are both recommending a variant of "keep", I'm not sure there's any benefit in further discussion on this point. I don't agree that White Dwarf is an independent source for early TSR material but since you and I both think the outcome of this discussion should not be "delete", there's no reason to parse the argument in detail.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I'm convinced that very few D&D monsters are notable by Wikipedian standards. Which is not to say Wikipedia shouldn't cover them -- I do think Wikipedia ought to have coverage of these critters, and there's no need to stretch Wikipedia's notability rules to achieve that. Individual items on a list do not need to be notable, so one could merge all the existing (very short) articles on D&D monsters into the relevant lists. Which leaves us with a smaller number of longer articles, each reviewed and watchlisted by more editors. That's not a bad thing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then my suggestion is remove the delete notice on this article and move this discussion to the talk page. If no third party sources can be found then re-list. Otherwise an article that could very well be sourced will get deleted because of a timeline placed on it on a whim. Web Warlock (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't know that that's necessary. Here's one likely source for you: http://www.bookofratings.com/dndmonsters.html. Especially if it's in the print version. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is not Wikipedia's purpose to keep articles where their notability may exist. Until such time it is proven notable, there is no reason to keep it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lore Sjoberg's hilarious, but I'm not sure he meets Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.
To Web Warlock, I would say that I shouldn't think the article will be deleted out of hand on this nomination. First, there's a rule called WP:BEFORE, which says that other possibilities should be exhausted before deleting the article. In this case, redirection is possible, so deletion is inappropriate. QED. Second, to date we have 100% "keep" consensus. (The "redirect" recommendations from Erpert and myself are technically "keep" outcomes.) Therefore, unless there's a remarkable about-face in subsequent discussion, I would be amazed if anyone closed this as "delete". Having said that, unless someone actually finds significant coverage in a third party source (and I really don't think they will), this material will quite rightly remain vulnerable to deletion nominations on the grounds that there's nothing notable about blink dogs. There's policy that says we are to preserve Wikipedia's material on these creatures, but in view of the notability objection I think we need to accept that blink dogs aren't best covered in a separate article with this title.
Removing the delete notice before seven days are up would not be appropriate unless there were so many "keep" !votes that the debate can be closed under WP:SNOW, which I don't think is very likely at all.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One independent ref. I have at least two others but can't access PubMed at home to verify. Web Warlock (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a total of 4 3rd party refs. I have 2 more I am tracking down. Web Warlock (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - especially on that White Dwarf article! BOZ (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that D&D animals are noteworthy and merit their own entry. It might be one thing if the articles could show real world outside significance, but I this is fancruft at the core.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant WP:CRUFTCRUFT ignoring General Notability Guideline. If fans don't get to include things just because they think they're awesome, irrespective of sourcing, you don't get to exclude things just because you think they're stupid, irrespective of sourcing. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As predicted, notability by coverage is now firmly established. Cheers. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I see no evidence of coverage in independent sources. Reyk _YO! 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those are independent sources. Not all the ones listed, but all the ones I added after 1 hour of research. Web Warlock (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, please describe, and preferably provide evidence for, how Garth Sundem, Random House, Tamara Rivers, Tate Publishing, White Dwarf and/or Games Workshop are affiliated with WotC and/or TSR. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Dwarf -- as I explained earlier in this debate, while it's currently owned by Games Workshop, at the time of publication of the relevant issue (i.e. issue 17), was owned by TSR (UK) Ltd. who were at that time the IP owners. The Guardian of Hope by Tamara Rivers is a recently-published fictional novel that contains a passing mention of the creature on one page. These two references fail WP:RS by a substantial margin. But having said that, the Garth Sundem reference is more substantial (he's a university professor referring to the creature in a nonfiction book) and worth digging into. I don't own that book. Can anyone who does confirm that the mention is more than trivial?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You "explained" that TSR owned White Dwarf, I suppose, but the problem there is that this is not true, per GRuban. It was a Games Workshop house organ even when it was "Owl and Weasel". See White Dwarf (magazine). The occurrence in The Guardian of Hope isn't really a "passing mention", either, I don't think; a passing mention is "oh, yeah, I used to have a blink dog", not a conversation that contrives to nail down physical appearance and the exact limits of teleportation range. Sundem does look like a passing mention, though, unless the quiz in which blink dogs appear has an answer key that isn't in Google Books's preview and says something about the creatures involved. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, my favored term for conversations like the one in The Guardian of Hope is "expositolicious". —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boz & WebWarlock.--Robbstrd (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is about an iconic D&D creature that is noteworthy and, as noted above, has been referenced plenty of times in 3rd party sources. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Original concern has been addressed.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (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.