1022:, which perfectly corresponds to what the IP did. When it'll mention that "if someone hasn't voted in an AfD, it's not canvasing" then I'll agree with you. But you know it doesn't, so arguing about that is pointless. If the only reasoning you can come up with to save the article is an excuse of a disruptive behavior such as canvassing, if that's the only thing you can talk about (not article content, not reliable sourcing), then it just shows that this isn't a good article, and it reinforces the opinion I have of inclusionists and their methods.
545:
The nominator changed his reason to delete, but I agree with the assertions of those who have argued that we have significant coverage in independent sources. I disagree with Folken de Fanel's disputations thereof, and his attempts to dissuade the closer from discarding anyone's good faith responses.
639:
I don't see any significant coverage, nor even real-life coverage. 1st source is only plot summary, 2nd source doesn't even appear to be related to the subject (the article is about a D&D creature, the book is about one author's creation which shares the name but is otherwise unrelated) and the
345:
but the original intention was IDONTLIKE it. Use that to get the AFD tag on (where it can't be removed) and then LATER come up with a reasoning for it? No, that smells of badfaith to me. Remove the AFD and ask for the refs to be improved first. If that can't be done in a month then come back to
959:
Or ask people who already voted keep in other D&D related AfDs to come here. I really don't know why you're so intend on defending this IP while this is an obvious case of canvassing. You can't deny it. It's fact. You're going around in circle, whether the IP voted here is not the issue here.
482:
I can't comment on the non-paizo source as I can't access it currently due to net nanny issues. WRT Paizo, the publisher has additional entries on the creature, including published materials. The references that are there appear sufficient to support the history cited in the article, but to state
978:
I never said it was. The obvious point, however, is that one can't judge what is canvassing and what isn't without understanding the reasons behind someone's actions. The behavior of the IP considered overall suggests that they could be something different to what you claim they are.
232:
At least 2 of the keep voters also objected to the Cusop Dingle's characterization of the references prior to the Nom changing his reason for deletion. Not that closing AFDs are a vote anyways, but don't presume to change other user's positions for them. -
501:
I stated that the reference cited is not significant coverage. I made no assertion about any other possible source. If you know of an independent reliable source with significant coverage, feel free give the details here or add them to the article.
721:
has been a feature of four incarnations of D&D and many monsters are covered in independent sources. This one is of a sufficient complexity that it will be.covered somewhere....this AfD has caught me on the hop. I suspect it'll involve a paper
659:
It looks sourced to me. Maybe one or two more, but then the appropriate tag would be to ask for more sources not go directly to deleting it. I say remove the AFD tag and put in a Ref
Improve one (or whatever it is called now).
616:
564:
says the coverage must not be trivial, but that perfectly define the sources brought here, where the name "aboleth" is just mentionned once and never thouroughly discussed. It's all either plot summary or not even
612:
1009:
are still here and you can't deny them. Find excuses for the IP as much as you want, it won't change the fact that this AfD has been tampered with. If this AfD closes as "keep", the issue will be raised at
161:
794:
per
Casliber. Regarding the IP, I don't think his messages are necessarily canvassing, since they are phrased neutrally. There was no implication in his remarks on my talk page that he wanted a keep vote.
704:. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required, but the only sources are either completely dependent of the subjects, or completely trivial and insignificant.
445:
I have seen in a while. As for the assertion that none of the references are independent, reread the reference list: the last two entries on the current reference list are not affiliated with TSR/WotC. -
200:) 05:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I now wish to change my reason for deletion: it should be deleted because of non-notability. I would also like to stress that my nomination is entirely in "good faith".
416:
903:
trying to sway the discussion here toward one outcome. The definition of vote-stacking is another matter, and accusations of sock-puppetry should not be made without good evidence.
847:
And this is a strange attempt to excuse the IP's behavior, because whether it voted or not (who knows? Maybe sockpuppetry is involved) has nothing to do with the definition of
372:
We discuss the article as a whole, we are not restricted to discussing the original reason for nomination. It often happens that other reasons emerge during the discussion.
122:
464:
Sadly, of those two, one mentions the
Aboleth and says nothing about them other than mentioning that they fought some humans, and the other is equally uninformative.
560:
It is not enough to just "disagree", you have to explain why it would be "significant coverage", otherwise it's just unsubstanciated and unhelpful for the discussion.
587:
Like I said above, I disagree with you and unless you feel that I could possibly your mind, then I don't need think I need to try to convince you that I am right.
394:
681:, the article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which it does not have, and which no one here has brought yet.
155:
746:
Being in several editions of a game is not a criterion for notability, and "other stuff exists" and "there must be sources" are not good "keep" arguments.
218:
As the nominator has now updated the deletion rationale, the person closing the AfD should discard the 3 "keep" votes based on the old version.
247:
And I for one am content that the AFD should be closed based on an assessment on all the arguments as they stand at the time of closure.
768:
17:
627:
733:
984:
950:
908:
838:
800:
1209:
1175:
40:
176:
95:
90:
143:
99:
1027:
969:
934:
899:
I was simply trying to appeal to common sense: if the IP itself hasn't voted, then we shouldn't assume that it's
856:
709:
686:
645:
578:
223:
810:
1143:
1106:
980:
946:
904:
834:
809:
They most certainly are canvassing, because the IP only contacted people who voted keep last time. Please see
796:
82:
442:
328:
310:
336:
1179:
1077:
886:
751:
569:
the D&D character. Merely "disagreeing" with that without even bothering to explain why is similar to
507:
473:
377:
296:
286:
252:
137:
1205:
36:
929:
canvassing. You have yet to explain how the fact that the IP has not yet voted here would change that.
1154:
1121:
1060:
1023:
965:
930:
852:
705:
682:
665:
641:
574:
351:
219:
570:
133:
1139:
1102:
169:
1190:
1158:
1125:
1081:
1063:
1031:
988:
973:
954:
938:
912:
890:
860:
842:
828:
804:
786:
755:
737:
713:
690:
669:
649:
631:
596:
582:
555:
536:
511:
496:
484:
477:
455:
430:
408:
381:
355:
340:
322:
300:
256:
242:
227:
209:
64:
727:
492:
451:
332:
238:
314:
183:
1073:
882:
747:
503:
469:
426:
404:
373:
292:
282:
248:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1204:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
925:, shows up and only contacts users who !voted "keep" on another D&D related AfD, then it
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
615:
significant coverage in an independent source, i.e. something not published by TSR or WoTC.
1183:
1019:
1011:
961:
848:
701:
678:
561:
527:
per
Sangrolu - serious bad-faith nomination, "ridiculous" is not a valid reason to delete.
465:
331:
nomination but since then Cusop Dingle has given a valid policy based reason for deletion.
1150:
1117:
661:
347:
318:
205:
197:
483:
that Paizo's coverage of the creature is not significant seems to me to be a failure of
821:
779:
622:
55:
1187:
723:
592:
551:
532:
488:
447:
234:
149:
833:
Still seems like a strange accusation to make when the IP hasn't even !voted here.
422:
400:
86:
116:
964:
has a definition, having voted in the AfD is not one of the defining criteria.
201:
193:
814:
772:
1186:, publication info is trivial). Nothing that demands a separate article. –
945:
Presumably an IP determined that an article be kept would vote to keep it.
1101:
sourcing not a bunch of D&D players voting keep because they like it.
588:
547:
528:
1149:
Then say that only. Otherwise one could easily assume you have a bias.
78:
70:
1178:
D&D creature that seems to lack any in-depth third-party sources (
1072:
Was there a
Knowledge (XXG) policy related argument for this !vote?
1198:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1018:, we can totally judge "what is canvassing and what isn't", per
346:
this. This looks like a backdoor way to get something deleted.
881:
Assuming, that is, that the IP has indeed not !voted here ...
677:
The article is not sourced enough to prove its notability. Per
274:
references are all to game-playing handbooks. No evidence of
1174:
somewhere. Yes, it is (partially) sourced, but it's still a
1116:
Is your issue the article or "a bunch of D&D players"?
1093:
no significant sources outside of TSR/WOTC. This needs
417:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
112:
108:
104:
168:
441:
per SPNic; this is one of the most blatant cases of
466:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention
182:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1212:). No further edits should be made to this page.
619:another decent-sized mention of the subject.
8:
923:which has already contributed to the article
921:Common sense says only one thing: if an IP,
415:Note: This debate has been included in the
393:Note: This debate has been included in the
192:Ridiculous article on a ridiculous subject.
1182:) and non-trivial real-world information (
414:
395:list of Games-related deletion discussions
392:
468:: these are not significant coverage.
640:coverage is anecdotal an best anyway.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
291:Correct to "significant" mentions.
993:Whatever someone may think of the
24:
700:non-notable subject which fails
1059:. A ridiculous AFD. -- cheers,
771:is canvassing for keep votes.
1:
289:) 07:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
327:Yes the nom sounds like an
1229:
1032:14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
65:19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
1191:09:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
1159:16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
1126:19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
1082:10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
1064:07:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
989:20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
974:07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
955:02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
939:01:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
913:00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
891:20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
861:20:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
843:07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
829:06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
805:05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
787:01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
756:06:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
738:00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
714:19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
691:19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
670:13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
650:19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
632:19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
597:21:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
583:21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
556:19:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
537:15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
512:16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
497:16:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
478:16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
456:14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
431:14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
409:14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
382:06:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
356:13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
341:14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
323:12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
301:16:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
257:21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
243:20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
228:19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
210:03:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
1201:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
309:. This sounds like an
981:Polisher of Cobwebs
947:Polisher of Cobwebs
905:Polisher of Cobwebs
835:Polisher of Cobwebs
797:Polisher of Cobwebs
281:reliable sources.
1176:WP:Run-of-the-mill
48:The result was
433:
420:
411:
398:
303:
270:as non-notable.
63:
1220:
1203:
1061:Michael C. Price
819:
777:
421:
399:
290:
187:
186:
172:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1210:deletion review
1199:
1024:Folken de Fanel
1001:behind it, the
966:Folken de Fanel
931:Folken de Fanel
853:Folken de Fanel
825:
815:
811:WP:VOTESTACKING
783:
773:
706:Folken de Fanel
683:Folken de Fanel
642:Folken de Fanel
630:
575:Folken de Fanel
220:Folken de Fanel
129:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1226:
1224:
1215:
1214:
1194:
1193:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1140:SchmuckyTheCat
1111:
1110:
1103:SchmuckyTheCat
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1067:
1066:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
942:
941:
916:
915:
894:
893:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
823:
789:
781:
761:
760:
759:
758:
741:
740:
716:
695:
694:
693:
654:
653:
652:
626:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
540:
539:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
459:
458:
443:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
435:
434:
412:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
329:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
311:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
304:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
190:
189:
126:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1225:
1213:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:WP:NOTABILITY
1177:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
917:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
896:
895:
892:
888:
884:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:vote-stacking
846:
845:
844:
840:
836:
832:
831:
830:
827:
826:
820:
818:
812:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
793:
790:
788:
785:
784:
778:
776:
770:
766:
763:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
735:
732:
729:
725:
720:
717:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
638:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
624:
618:
614:
611:
608:
607:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
523:
522:
513:
509:
505:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
486:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
444:
440:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
418:
413:
410:
406:
402:
396:
391:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
333:duffbeerforme
330:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
305:
302:
298:
294:
288:
284:
280:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1200:
1197:
1171:
1135:
1131:
1130:"This needs
1098:
1094:
1090:
1074:Cusop Dingle
1056:
1015:
1007:consequences
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
926:
922:
901:deliberately
900:
883:Cusop Dingle
822:
816:
791:
780:
774:
769:This IP user
764:
748:Cusop Dingle
730:
718:
697:
674:
656:
636:
620:
609:
566:
524:
504:Cusop Dingle
470:Cusop Dingle
438:
374:Cusop Dingle
306:
293:Cusop Dingle
283:Cusop Dingle
278:
275:
271:
267:
249:Cusop Dingle
215:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1151:Web Warlock
1136:significant
1132:independent
1118:Web Warlock
1099:significant
1095:independent
662:Web Warlock
348:Web Warlock
313:nomination.
279:independent
276:significant
272:Significant
156:free images
1138:sourcing"
999:intentions
962:canvassing
571:WP:ILIKEIT
58:Sandstein
1206:talk page
722:search...
623:Torchiest
485:WP:BEFORE
423:• Gene93k
401:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1208:or in a
1188:sgeureka
1005:and its
997:and the
995:behavior
734:contribs
724:Casliber
489:Sangrolu
448:Sangrolu
235:Sangrolu
123:View log
39:or in a
1172:Upmerge
675:Comment
637:Comment
216:Comment
162:WP refs
150:scholar
96:protect
91:history
79:Aboleth
71:Aboleth
1184:WP:WAF
1091:Delete
1020:WP:CAN
1012:WP:DRV
1003:action
702:WP:GNG
698:Delete
679:WP:GNG
617:Here's
613:Here's
562:WP:GNG
268:Delete
134:Google
100:delete
628:edits
567:about
315:SPNic
202:Luwat
194:Luwat
177:JSTOR
138:books
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1155:talk
1144:talk
1134:and
1122:talk
1107:talk
1097:and
1078:talk
1057:Keep
1028:talk
985:talk
970:talk
951:talk
935:talk
909:talk
887:talk
857:talk
839:talk
817:Reyk
801:talk
792:Keep
775:Reyk
765:Note
752:talk
728:talk
719:Keep
710:talk
687:talk
666:talk
657:Keep
646:talk
610:Keep
593:talk
579:talk
552:talk
533:talk
525:Keep
508:talk
493:talk
487:. -
474:talk
452:talk
439:Keep
427:talk
405:talk
378:talk
352:talk
337:talk
319:talk
307:Keep
297:talk
287:talk
253:talk
239:talk
224:talk
206:talk
198:talk
170:FENS
144:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1016:Yes
824:YO!
782:YO!
589:BOZ
548:BOZ
529:BOZ
184:TWL
121:– (
1157:)
1146:)
1124:)
1080:)
1030:)
1014:.
987:)
972:)
953:)
937:)
927:is
911:)
889:)
859:)
841:)
813:.
803:)
767:-
754:)
736:)
712:)
689:)
668:)
648:)
595:)
581:)
554:)
535:)
510:)
495:)
476:)
454:)
429:)
419:.
407:)
397:.
380:)
354:)
339:)
321:)
299:)
255:)
241:)
226:)
208:)
164:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1153:(
1142:(
1120:(
1109:)
1105:(
1076:(
1026:(
983:(
968:(
949:(
933:(
907:(
885:(
855:(
851:.
837:(
799:(
750:(
731:·
726:(
708:(
685:(
664:(
644:(
621:—
591:(
577:(
573:.
550:(
531:(
506:(
491:(
472:(
450:(
425:(
403:(
376:(
350:(
335:(
317:(
295:(
285:(
251:(
237:(
222:(
204:(
196:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.