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. After discounting the blocked sock nominator there is an (albeit narrow) consensus that the sourcing is sufficient for a standalone article. Even if one would discount some "keep" opinions as not addressing the sourcing issue, it's at least a no consensus default to keep.  Sandstein  20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg[edit]

Ankheg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This fictional monster fails the general notability guideline, due to the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. While there are multiple citations to reliable sources, none of them are third party, all being associated with the official Dungeons and Dragons brand/game. A search engine test provides no signs of independent coverage. Anthem 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources relating to this topic were not self-published and so are quite satisfactory for our purpose as there is editorial independence and commercial distribution. Warden (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact "self-published" in that the publishers of the books cited are TSR, Inc. or Wizards of the Coast. Both TSR and Wizards of the Coast have owned the Dungeons and Dragons trade mark and have been the producers of Dungeons and Dragons products. There's no real editorial independence of these sources from the games, as they are essentially produced by the same companies. --Anthem 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most publishers and authors protect their intellectual property by means of copyrights and so forth. The publishing operation here is quite standard - there are separate authors, editors and publishing staff and numerous publications and journals. This output is sold commercially and so is not a vanity press or free promotional material such as advertising. There is therefore no reason to discount such sources as they are satisfactory for both notability and verifiability. Warden (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was "vanity or free promotional material" - that's a straw man. A better analogy would be that they are instruction manuals as how to play the game. They don't substantiate the notability of individual parts of it - they're primary sources. --Anthem 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this fictional species is protected by intellectual property rights does not mean that we shouldn't expect there to be any independent sources. Harry Potter (character), Superman, and Mickey Mouse are all protected by copyright and/or trademark, and yet the articles about them have sources independent of their creators/publishers. Obviously, I don't expect ankhegs to have as many independent sources as those characters, but they ought to have at least one to justify including a separate Wikipedia article about them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Ankheg, like many other D&D monsters has been included into the System Reference Document (SRD) and used by other roleplaying game publishers (creating verifiable secondary sources of the same element of culture). I'm suprised that Anthem's "search engine test" did not throw up the Ankheg page in the Pathfinder Reference Document, which is Paizo's conversion of the specific D&D monster in this article to their own upgraded (but compatible) rules. I'm also suprised that he did not stumble onto the Ankheg article on Pathfinder Wiki. Pathfinder Wiki is an independent encyclopedia of things that relate to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and is a high quality wiki, with accurate citations. If you check their sources, they have four Paizo publications that further develop the fictional monster on this page. It took me less than 10 seconds to work out that Ankheg had been republished by Paizo. I'm sure that someone with more time could find other sources from other 3rd edition era publishers. I think this AFD should be scrapped and that Wikiproject D&D should be asked to clean up the article and add more sources. Big Mac (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the suitability of Pathfinder Wiki in the light of WP:SPS? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our guidelines on reliable sources. Wiki-projects which anyone can edit such as the Pathfinder Wiki are not reliable sources, and the System Reference Document is a primary source, because it is not independent of the publishers of the game. Anthem 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The sources quoted are not independent of the topic. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What about dragon magazine, dungeon magazine, third party modules, etc? The Ankheg has most definitely appeared in reliable sources, but even if it hadn't it is something every gamer knows about. Why are editors suddenly trying to delete gaming material?98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we are applying overly stringent standards here. Applied elsewhere we'd have to delete lots of information. Something doesn't have to be hugely notable to earn a wikipedia entry. It simply needs to exist as a component of something notable. D&D is notable. It is THE role playing game. I see no reason why monsters from any of the monster manuals or from different editions couldn't have their own articles. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The place for information on a component on a notable thing is as a component of the article on that notable thing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with Warden and Big Mac. Note that there was only recently a similar Afd (over Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)) that failed to produce a consensus to delete. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- our requirements regarding independent sources are very clear. If there aren't any, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article is sourced solely to stuff produced by people who have an interest in promoting it. There is no evidence that anyone else has taken any notice. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how this interview hosted on Tor.com, Tor Books' website, is produced "by people who have an interest in promoting it"? I don't see anything else published by Tor in the references list, and I thought that TSR and Wizards were the vested companies. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're basing your assertion of notability on a single name-drop in half a sentence in an interview with the guy who invented this fictional monster? Really? Reyk _YO! 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm asking you a specific question about a blanket statement you made that I don't see matches reality. If there's an error of fact in your deletion rationale, it might well be discarded by the closing admin, and I wouldn't want your voice to go uncounted simply because you were too hasty in writing your rationale. You have plenty of time to amend it appropriately, that's all. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Reyk. A Google Books search is very instructive here, since Ankheg was entirely made up for D&D. In addition to the two independent RS that appear in the article already, I found four in Bastion Press (not TSR or Wizards-owned) publications 1234, and one in Computer Gaming World. Likewise, Google News Archive shows mention in multiple Baldur's Gate reviews. Google Scholar duplicates two of the Google Books entries, but adds another mention in what appears to be a fan-generated GURPS supplement that I'm unsure why they chose to include. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion was Delete, so when you start saying things like "keep per Reyk" you are deliberately being a dick. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said it must be covered by independent sources to be kept, and I entirely agree and explained why with plenty of examples. Nothing dickish about that, just AGFing that you meant what you said. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You found a bunch of trivial name-drops, and you are twisting my words. You are trying to maneuver me into a position where I either have to agree with you or admit bad faith. It's the second time I've seen you do this in about a week. It's a cheap trick. Knock it off. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I merely posted the links, explicitly calling two of them "mentions"; triviality or not is something for the editors commenting here to evaluate. If you want to be a bit more verbose in the future--that is, finding such references, linking them to the discussion, and commenting on their triviality--then we could avoid avoid such misunderstandings in the future, which I'm sure is a goal you can agree with. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per WP:BURDEN, you find the sources on this topic. --Anthem 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk. "Trivial name drops", as he put it, do not confer notability; the topic has to actually be discussed in some detail in third party sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge - "Trivial name drops" sound like another way to say "independent resources"; "trivial" is in the eye of the consensus. I add merge as an option because while I think D&D creatures deserve coverage, its hard to justify separate articles without delving too deep into in-universe style. This article does have some factual publication history sort of info, but that sort of info is conveyed better, I think, in larger summary articles. While some entities are important enough to the property to warrant separate articles, ankhegs seem mostly a background feature. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep particularly per the arguments of Jclemens and Sangrolu. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well sourced, interesting article, that only lacks an image for perfection. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Let's just go through all the sources on offer to check whether they constitute significant coverage in reliable third party sources:

The Monster Manual is not independent because it is published by TSR, who are the same company which produces Dungeons and Dragons and owns the brand.

Dragon (magazine) is also not independent, because it is published by TSR. It is an official magazine, containing primary coverage.

The interview with Erol Otus contains no significant coverage of the Ankheg.

Monstrous Compendium Volume Two is also not independent, because it is published by TSR.

A later edition of the Monster Manual is also not independent, because it is published by Wizards of the coast which is not an independent source.

A user edited wiki such as [1] is a classic unreliable source.

[2] is just someone's internet database of monsters in the Final Fantasy series and thus is of dubious reliability.

Moving on to Jclemen's sources:

[3] is not significant coverage. Significant coverage must address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.

[4] is not significant coverage. The mention of "ankheg acid" in a table and a short explanation of what it is does not constitute significant coverage of ankheg, per the definition of significant coverage.

[5] is not significant coverage. The fact that the ankheg is in a list of creatures with six legs does not give it notability.

[6] is not significant coverage - ankhegs are just listed in a table along with other creatures.

[7] is not significant coverage - the ankheg is not adressed in detail.

Pointing at hundreds of "possible sources" at [8] makes my life difficult, but none of the first five sources are reliable or proffer significant coverage.

Out of the three GoogleScholar sources, two just list Ankhegs in lists of D&D creatures, and one states that the Ankheg was an inspiration for an illustration. Not significant coverage.
So, I remain committed to deleting this article unless someone can show how this meets Wikipedia's criteria for significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources, or provide other sources which do provide such content. There seems to be an aberrant local consensus among editors of D&D articles that notability is unimportant, and unless you can find sources which support your keep !votes, that opinion of mine will be reinforced. Anthem 10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge I agree with Sangrolu. The ankheg is a monster unique to D&D that has existed in most versions of the game, and there are enough sources to merit at least minimal coverage somewhere, whether it's on its own page or not. zorblek (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by "minimal coverage" you mean one or two sentences on a list of D&D monsters, I agree with you. If so, may I ask why you're !voting keep as well ? Anthem 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem this seems like a lot of reliable sources have been provided. The majority clearly supports keeping this article. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment about all the so-called "reliable sources". Anthem 16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them. I believe most of these are reliable sources and so do most of the other posters. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the minority can be right. Unless you specifically rebut my points, I assume that you don't have any legitimate arguments to support the reliability of the sources. Anthem 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem you don't get to make the final decision here. But to your point, I think the fact that it is listed in those sources makes it a significant monster in RPGs. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - I recommend closing this AFD, as the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Claritas. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. The discussion has been perfectly sensible. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because blocked users such as Claritas/Anthem are not permitted to edit, and that includes starting AFDs. This is not the first time this user has created a sockpuppet account to continue his disruption (User:Blest Withouten Match was the last example I recalled). BOZ (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no disruption here, but a civilised and sensible discussion. If there's a rule against it, then I would ignore it Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK? BOZ (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable. was nominated by a sockpuppet.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [9]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Regardless of the source of the complaint, I think it's still a valid concern. I am not opposed to D&D monsters having their own entry, if they are notable creations that have had a major impact on the game and through it, popular culture, such as the Drow, Beholder, or Mind Flayer. However, I don't think that this particular entry counts as one of them. This is a minor monster and I don't think Wikipedia should be a repository for every single D&D creature--this is written in an in-universe style and really ads nothing else other that a sourced bibliography. I think many of the D&D monsters should be moved either to their own Wiki or turned into a list, similar to what was done with Pokemon. JRT (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence that the fictional monster meets the general notability guideline. The majority of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work and that which is not is merely its publication history, nothing to presume that the monster has reception or significance in reliable third-party sources. I also believe that this is not an appropiate topic since Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details and this is a minor monster in the Dungeons & Dragons game. The article is referenced with primary and tertiary sources and lacks reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume that it has notability to deserve a stand-alone article. As Reyk mentioned, random Google hits is not the same as notability, as notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trivial mentions in secondary sources (such as reviews of games) or detailed mentions in tertiary sources (such as gaming guides) are not evidence of notability. Jfgslo (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - mainly because there is little to merge to and it has a 30 year history of coverage - I'll pay this as significant, but do concede it is a bit "in-universey". If I get a chance I will keep hunting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion Press is owned by Dragonwing Games, a company with a direct commercial interest in promoting D&D. The argument "keep because there's nowhere to merge it to" seems particularly weak. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone (magazine) has a direct commercial interest in promoting music. Hmm, so does Billboard (magazine). Are those, then, impeached as independent sources on music? I thought not. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a direct commercial interest in promoting a specific piece of music, which has an article, and that article is up for discussion, then thid comment would become relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're saying Bastion press has a specific commercial interest in promoting Ankhegs in specific, instead of just publishing RPG subjects for D20/D&D in general? While I'm not going to argue that the coverage is hugely broad, I will say this: if that's your definition of independence, then that is an insurmountable hurdle for third party publishers to ever be considered independent on anything deriving from primary sources. Yes, if you sell X, even though you didn't originate X, you make money from X. Music, RPGs, Pokemon, TV shows, novels, etc. I think it's clear both from policy and common sense that you're drawing the line far too narrowly. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a direct interest in promoting the game which is the only place where this entity appears. However, independence is only one of the problems in my comments below. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's consider this source in detail against the criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ankheg is a fictional entity in a particular game which this source discusses and out of which the publisher making a living. Is that "independent"? The book is indeed (more than a bit "in-universey": in fact it's entirely about suggestions for how this game might be played. Is that "reliable"? Finally, let me quote the entire coverage (don;t worry, this isn't going to violate anyone's copyright!). It's on a page about how a plain of grass might be viewed in the game. "A knowledge check ... provides awareness of the relationship between tripweed and ankheg." "Burrowing through the ground underneath the intended target, the ankheg waits for the ideal opportunity to surprise its prey." "There is a 15% chance of enountering an ankheg while passing through a patch of tripweed." One mention in a table and the index and that's it. Three sentences. Is that "significant coverage"? Does this add up to notability supporting a free-standing article. I say no. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2011 (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.