Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lich_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)}})

Not particularly notable as a separate topic compared to the overall fantasy Lich which it could easily be merged into, as that article is rather underdeveloped. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Lich. Based on the nomination, I don't understand why this was not directly proposed as a merge. BD2412 T 04:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect/Light Merge to Lich, per above. Taking out all of the in-universe plot information, there is not a whole lot that would justify this being WP:SPLIT from the main topic. Its already mentioned there, but its entry could probably use some expansion. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Lich per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Clarification As per Sariel Xilo below, my preference is keep over merge and then merge over delete. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lich. No sources here that would help establish notability, and really there is only one sentence here that should be merged. That can be accomplished instantly without any need for a merge recommendation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge or keep: As the Lich article is closely related with the lich from Dungeons & Dragons, I am fine either way. There are secondary sources treating the topic in the article, which should be preserved. There's also some discussion about the lich in [https://books.google.de/books?id=YVlEBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT47&dq=lich+dungeons+and+dragons&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg7aKX6ffoAhWiBRAIHWmWAAYQ6AEINjAB#v=onepage&q=lich%20dungeons%20and%20dragons&f=false Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy]. Aside from the reception section, some content based on primary sources is also worth preserving. (Primary sources are not "bad", right, they just don't contribute to notability?) And actually the io9 source here provides a reference for some of the content in the introductory section of the Lich article which is unsourced. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep - weak because I can't see the D&D and Philosophy book. I think this crosses the line. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to sources above, D&D liches were the subject of an article in Kobold Quarterly (an independent publication) issue 3. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge or at the very least keep. The amount of verifiable content makes me think keep, but I see the rationale to merge information to other articles per other users. ClaudeDavid ^(talk) 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or merge given several WP:RS have been found per Josh Milburn above. It's one of 3 monsters specifically called out in the 5E Monster Manual review by SLUG Magazine (the review also highlights non-specific monster categories like devil & demon) so I added that to the reception section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Clarification My preference is keep over merge and then merge over delete. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep—¿philoserf? (talk)
• KEEP Based on sources found and in the article's reception section already. Lich_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Reception Dream Focus 20:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Decent sources. I think the Geek & Sundry article is good — a non-fiction article specifically about liches that gives real-world information. The Kobold Quarterly article sounds promising. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

:*The Geek & Sundry article just shows that Lichs as seen in D&D aren't an original concept, there is nothing particularly special about them compared to other fictional depictions of the Lich, and therefore this information would be better off in an overall article about the Lich in fiction._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

::*Well, that article emphasizes the importance the D&D version of the lich for all other appearances since then. Or in other words, there would not be material for a Lich article on Wikipedia if the Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) had not been introduced by Gary Gygax in 1975. Daranios (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• weak keep Geek & Sundry is a bit short, but certainly is commentary on the history of the idea. I hunted down the Kobold quarterly article. It has a little bit of out-of-game context, but mostly discusses how to use them and a bit of "in-world" ideas. Certainly a reliable, independent source solely on this topic. So yeah, neither is amazing, but those two are enough to scrape by on WP:N. There are a number of other better sources, but they aren't independent. There are also a number of "nearly news" sources with things like "top 10 D&D monsters" which isn't worth much, but probably tips this in. Hobit (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge selectively to Lich. I don't know how this doesn't functionally fail WP:GAMEGUIDE (per Rorshacma's vote) and stripping it down would leave enough for a paragraph or two in the other article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Can you specify what part of GAMEGUIDE this is violating? Sources cover the history of the topic fairly well as well as the larger impact (basically how many other games have used this idea/name). From a WP:N viewpoint, we are there I think (if not by a lot). Hobit (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• The vast majority article's sources only detail how the character was used in different versions of the game and are primary, which I think clearly violates the spirit of WP:GAMEGUIDE if not the letter of the rule (which is about video games.) Perhaps cruft is the better verbiage? This character is not really notable in its own right, and notability isn't inherited. There's some sources noting the character's reception, yes, but I think that can be moved to Lich. Maybe this can be moved to a different wiki? SportingFlyer T·C 04:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• We've got multiple independent sources, so I think it is notable. CRUFT isn't really a valid argument for deletion, it's a variation of IDONTLIKEIT. Now that said, I totally understand the cruft argument. I find our coverage of random soccer players is cruft (and I actually watch EPL and have gone to England mostly just to watch a game!). And I can see not wanting to have a page for every notable fictional element of a game or book series. But I think this meets our current policies and guidelines. Hobit (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (Edited 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC))
• I think Lich is notable, but the secondary sources I see are either the Geek and Sundry (which I am assuming, but cannot confirm for myself, is reliable) or discuss the character in a list. I don't see anything here which can't be merged in with Lich. In terms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, many !votes on the Games AfD category come down to ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. I also agree with you that CRUFT may be a IDONTLIKEIT argument, but I'm using it here to discuss the sourcing. I see an article which relies almost completely on primary/non-independent sources, with weak secondary sources, which could easily be covered in a different article, hence my merge !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• :{{u|SportingFlyer}}, I have the same question as {{u|Hobit}} —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep The Lich article is pretty sparse, and could easily fit the DnD page into it. Though it could also easily become a WP:COATRACK. Not sure why this was brought to AfD when it probably should have just been a merge discussion...? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.