Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blink dog (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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 delete. I love these things, but the argument based on lack of secondary RS is spot-on. I don't see a consensus for a merge, especially since the content is unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blink dog

AfDs for this article:

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

Blink dog (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)

This fails to establish notability. The last AfD seems to be a dogpile of keeps based on literally nothing but the promise of sources, which wasn't delivered or even proven to exist. The "In popular culture" is full of trivial mentions. TTN (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as above. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the scope of fiction is nearly infinite, so there needs to be a cutoff point. Unless you're of the opinion that Wikipedia has a duty to list every single minor character, creature, monster, location, weapon, skill, upgrade, etc of every fantasy series, video game, novel, tabletop game, etc that establishes notability on this site, we need set points where we say "Unless there are reliable sources detailing this with real world information, we don't need to cover anything beyond this point." TTN (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you missed my comment about "well-established elements"! Many elements in fiction aren't worthy of recording. But elements that have been around since the beginning of a game created fifty years ago and still significant today are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's uselessly subjective. That's why we have a much less vague notion of notability as established by the guideline rather than notability established by personal definitions. TTN (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's an opinion. As are most comments at AfD. Remember, we don't have rules on Wikipedia. Something that is too often forgotten by those whose primary purpose and source of enjoyment here is to delete others' work, I've found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an opinion backed by nothing with no consistent logic in how it would be applied beyond your particular sensibilities. You have your idea of what you find significant and important, but that's not going to be the same as anyone else. TTN (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not a game guide and this has no notability outside of the game. Fails WP:GNG. I don't think WP:PRESERVE nor WP:ATD apply as this cannot be improved. It already faithfully describes much of what the game guides tell us, but the problem is that this is not notable beyond that. There is no mythology of Blink dogs. There are no WP:RS that describe this information for taxonomies or cultural studies. There are no journal articles on the habits of a Blink Dog. The only relevance this has is to people playing a game. D&D players know all about Blink Dogs because it is in their monster manual, and nothing Wikipedia adds is going to help them at all. That is why this and all the rest of these need to go. They are out of scope for an encyclopaedia. They are in scope for a D&D wiki or the publisher of a D&D game guide. Wikipedia is not those things so can we just stop contesting these deletions and let them all go please? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable fictional monster. The sources are either primary, trivial, or from non-reliable sources. The previous AFD from a decade ago resulted in a "Keep" based on the argument that reliable sources probably exist, which, as it turns out, is not the case. Fails the WP:GNG by a fair margin. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the few creatures invented by rather than adapted for Dungeons & Dragons. More importantly, use of the creature transferred into videogames and a television show, indicating a certain level of awareness of the concept.Guinness323 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any WP:RS to that effect please? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (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/Blink_dog_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=938574325"