Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) was not closed as delete or redirect

I believe the Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) article was pretty clearly excluded from the AfD per the discussion of the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons). To quote, "The struck out articles are considered to have their nomination withdrawn". Ergo, the page in question did not arrive at a consensus because of an opinion on the part of the nominator that it should be struck. The persistent revert to the redirect may be bordering on disruptive behavior and should stop. If there is a continuing question of notability, it should be taken through the AfD separately. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The page in question was not redirected by the admin who closed and redirected the other articles in the mass AfD, true.

The implementation of the AfD close was brought here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Next_step_regarding_non-notable_creatures to which the consensus appears to be that the results of the mass afd should be applied to other articles in the same condition of not being based on signficant coverage of third party sources, which, certainly still applies to Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about your reasoning because your initial revert was made prior to anything resembling consensus. I will let it pass this time and assume you're not intentionally being disruptive. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see any consensus in the above section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I, too, do not see consensus for the redirect. I see assertions, but that's it. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You really gonna stick by the untennable position and drag everyone through another series of AfD's ??? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you could join us and help improve the coverage of the creatures... Remember, they're not cookie cutters; each has a differing amount of coverage, and the difficulty of demonstrating that coverage varies. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the coverage by third parties will vary. On a scale of 1-100 most will range between .0001 and .005. And the ones above that will have already had the sources added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's be careful about prejudice here; each article must be judged on its own merits. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And when the "merits" of one match for "quality" the "merits" of others that have been judged and found lacking, there really is no need to continue to have the same discussions.. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks I'm not making myself clear here: I'm not arguing in favor of either keeping these articles or turning them into redirects. I'm arguing in favor of caution while assessing whether an article should be redirected. Is that clear enough? If an article has at least one independent source, then it may well have more. At that point a review is not harmful, even if it requires a little more time. Feel free to post here any articles where you find said references and we will be happy to check it. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ~

OK, which independent source, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not clear what you're asking. Something that satisfies WP:INDY, like a review or an independent book. The usual. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that we haven't found any source of this kind yet, that's why I consider talks of restoration premature. I was not particularly in favor of redirecting Brownie and the like as soon at the AfD was closed, but on the other hand, calling for another AfD would seem to be contradiction with the conclusions reached in the last one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. In that case I can perform an independent check of the listed sources from the history archives and if I run across any concerns I'll bring them up here for discussion. No matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some of these articles will be more notable than others. Due diligence should be taken before applying a mass redirect. If an article has at least one independent source, then it should probably be verified. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The aim of the recent AfD was to reach a consensus not only on individual articles, but on the overall meaning of "secondary independent sources" related to the notability of acticles about fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read the nomination. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists cuts both ways here; I am merely requesting due diligence and not abject prejudice. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well, then it failed to articulate that goal, and failed to achieve it as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not using Wikipedia:Other stuff exists appropriately. The point isn't that other articles don't exist, but that WP:GNG set sourcing standards that the proposed sources don't match. And Jclemens, yes, the nomination did articulate that goal ("Books published specifically to be used for a game system are not independent sources for that game system; there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources: the sourcebooks for the game itself.") and was achieved by an acknowledgment of a consensus to redirect based on the argument that "there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources".Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe I am. To quote, "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy." You were applying a ruling about a limited set of articles to all articles of the same type. Again, I will have to insist on due diligence and not abject prejudice. If you check properly then I won't have a concern. If you blindly start redirecting articles that are notable, then we will have an issue. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The ruling was not, as I explained, only about a limited set of articles, but about the nature of sources used to assess notability for articles about fiction, as stated in the nomination rationale.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying that; I keep not believing that the closing admin ever asserted anything of the sort. Can you please either back up your assertion or drop that as a contested point? Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was the AfD closed on redirect, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, you really need me to answer that? Because the closer interpreted redirect as the consensus outcome, of course. That's all. No adjudication of sourcing arguments was made, nor are closing admins expected or required to do so. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, that's exactly where I was coming at, the closer interpreted "redirect" as the consensus outcome.AfDs are not head counts, they are decided on the strength of arguments and the argument on which the "redirect" consensus was elaborated was that all the sources presented were not secondary independent and thus could not make the articles notable. Unless you want to make this even more drawn-out than you already have, I'm not gonna quote each reference to this argument in every single "redirect" recommandation, I think you have enough good faith and self-respect not to deny that this indeed was THE argument put forth by those who supported redirection. And you're right, closing admins are not expected or required to say anything else besides determining where consensus went, except in cases where said consensus would go against community-consensus on a wider scale (but that exception did not happen in our case). Your only basis for contesting a consensus on sources was that the admin didn't specifically refer to that, and since you've just terminated that by yourself stating that "closing admins [are not] expected or required" to do so, then I can't see how you could continue this argument without resorting to bad faith (denying that AfDs are based on strength of argument, for example).Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The closer didn't say "the sources are inadequate". No matter how you slice it or dice it, trying to make it say something it does not is simply original research. You can want it to be something it's not... but the argument from silence is not logically valid. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The closer did not say "the sources are adequate", quite the contrary because he redirected the articles. And we're back to why redirect, because consensus, and why consensus, because strength of argument, and why strength of argument, because we said it wasn't adequate and your contention that it was adequate didn't convince the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To repeat myself, the argument from silence is not logically valid. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"the argument from silence is not logically valid"...that means that "The closer didn't say "the sources are inadequate"" is not logically valid, then. By your own admission. And for the second time. You seem to be ready to sacrifice all credibility just for the sake of having the last word...And so I will ask you why the article was kept, and you'll say because consensus, and why consensus ? because strength of argument. There is a point when you just have to learn to drop it because the articles got redirected whatever you could say. Sources are either adequate or they're not, if they're adequate there is no ground to redirect, so take it up with the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, all I've ever said is that you've drawn conclusions which do not follow from the actual closing statement, and repeated those unsupportable assertions even when called on it. Above, you again propose that I should go beyond the closer's statement in the other direction, which I again decline to do. The closer said what the closer said; nothing more. There's no particular desire to "get the last word" here, but I am patiently refuting repeated assertions that exceed what was actually said by the closer. I'd be happy to be done if you would. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok so you refuse to take the issue to the closing admin, so indeed you just want to get the last word over me. Of course my statements are unchanged, I stick to what I said, but you can add whatever nonesense you want after my comment and I won't answer you, if it makes you feel better. Enjoy yourself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're entirely correct: I didn't take anything to the closing admin for clarification. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

White Dwarf as a source

Specifically on the Brownie article, why is the White Dwarf citation being disregarded as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? Unlike some of the other sources, which have been subject to debate, that is a pretty clear cut case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

because "The brownie was written up as a player character race" is not significant coverage. The content of of the WD article cannot be used in any way to meet the "based on third party sources". and the coverage is still entirely in-game. in other words, fail WP:N -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what an instance of appropriate coverage would look like? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the issue raised about White Dwarf in the AfD is that it's a Games Workshop publication, GW being an official D&D publisher for the UK, that makes it first-party and thus not independent of the subject or the creator.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Publisher? Try "distributor", which gives a financial relationship, but not one which allows them editorial control over content. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

and having merely a financial interest in the subject still identifies the source as not third party. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Only to the same extent we would discount the New York Times' coverage of a subject because it accepted paid advertising from the subject. Such ridiculously high standards for non-connectedness for licensing and incidental revenue are part of the problem here: there is simply no reasonableness to be had from those arguing for non-notability. I can understand people disagreeing with me about certain facets of notability, but to try to impeach White Dwarf as a source because the two companies had a distribution agreement flies in the face of common sense: Independence is not a hammer with which to drive all interrelated industry publications out of the encyclopedia, it's designed to keep from publishing press releases and other COI materials. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If the advertiser was responsible for 60-80% of the NYT's revenue we certainly would. 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And where's that documented? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

that we would not accept NYT coverage as independent of an advertiser that constituted 60-80% of there revenue? We can go check the RS Notice boards if you have any doubt. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the assertion that 60-80% of GW's revenue was from D&D (or TSR games as a whole) is unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

you are the one who made the comparison to NYT advertisers as somehow magically resulting in some distributor relationship for which there would be no financial conflict of interest /independent third party status with which we should be concerned. At 60-80% or even 10-15% we wouldnt use the NYT about that advertiser. The relationship between a game distributor and the largest RPG creates a de facto concern for which those wishing to claim the relationship is not an issue need to provide the evidence. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So then the 60-80% rate was just a number pulled from the air, rather than an indication of anyone's belief as to how much revenue GW ever derived from TSR product distribution? Thanks for the clarification. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability indicates attention "in the world at large", the world at large doesn't end with companies having direct financial interest in the product. GW used its WD publication to promote its D&D sourcebooks, and used the reader base of its D&D sourcebooks to promote its own publication. Such obvious self-promotion is among the cases excluded from WP:GNG. Jclemens, argue as long as you will, you're not close to reach a consensus, even those who usually agree with you don't support you on this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We get it: you don't think any of these are notable because non-genre publications haven't covered each individually in painstaking detail. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said "non-genre", I said "non-independent", which is quite different. Please stop misrepresenting my comments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please name me one FRP genre magazine independent of TSR? Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

that the genre is essentially a walled garden"ITICCDMPRIPR" does not exempt it from WP:N-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, for clarity and specificity's sake: It is the belief of those arguing against the notability of independent D&D creatures that the web of cross-promotion, licensing, and revenue agreements within the FRP industry between the 1980's and today render no publication sufficiently "independent" to be used as an independent source per Wikipedia guidelines for any matter related to FRP? This is an important point--please correct me if I've misphrased or over-sold what you actually are saying here, because if that's really your position it would have pretty huge impact for many other hobbies. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my belief that the standard examples that have been offered have serious issues regarding whether or not in the general and standard terms described under WP:N and WP:V they meet the criteria for independence and that WP:V and WP:N do not make exceptions for genres/ walled gardens"ITICCDMPRIPR" to support stand alone notability. If the only sources presented about specific elements of a religious sect was the holy documents of that religious sect, we would not be able to write stand alone articles about those elements. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It would look like something that would support an encyclopedia article. An ideal set of sources would be by multiple third parties and would contain an analysis of how the fictional part worked in-game for balance (or how it was broken and abused by players.) It would contain commentary from the designers about how they decided to create the various aspects to address in game concerns (or how they completely ignored game mechanics becuase they loved the concept of X critter). The source would would contain content about how the design of the element impacted later versions of the game with new lines of powers/equipment/playstyles. The sources would contain commentary from notable gamers about how the critter played a memerable role in their gaming experience or why it made them leave the game. They would contain content about how the element was inspired by real world fairy tales or specific fictional works, and how it differed. They would show how the element expand from use in D&D and impacted "the real world"TM or how protests/lawsuits from "the real world"TM caused it to be changed from one edition to another. It would be something that you could see and expect to grow into something like one of these Wikipedia:WAF#List_of_exemplary_articles or at the very least something from a third party that showed that the critter was at least notable within the fictional game sphere and not be a mere list of edited for clarification"It appeared in a game book (ref: the primary source a game book where it appears) and another game book(ref: the primary source another game book where it appears) and a third game book (ref: the primary source a third game book where it appears)" and be sourced solely to a game book, another game book and a third game book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your bar is fairly high. Would you demand that all sports coverage only count if it was not in sports sections/magazines? Hobit (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"or at the very least something from a third party that showed that the critter was at least notable within the fictional game sphere " - I dont think that is an exceptionally high bar. we demand that web content indicate why its subject is important or significant in the real world, or it is subject to speedy deletion. Requiring a fictional component to at least be important within its fictional sphere would seem to be a rather low bar. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

and as a note I have slightly edited my initial comment to be more clear what I was intending by "game books as a source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think TRPOD ever mentionned coverage would only count if it was not in RPG sections/magazines (I take it that's what you meant with your sports analogy). The thing is that you can't even find RPG magazines (again discarding the obvious self-promotions that are Dragons, Dungeons or White Dwarf) that contain significant mentions of these creatures...Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. White Dwarf has historically be considered acceptable since it had independent editorial control from TSR (as far as I can tell). I certainly consider White Dwarf and Pathfinder to be independent and can't be considered "self-promotions" of TSR or WoTC they are presently utterly independent (always for Pathfinder, most of its history for WD). It is a small field so sources are fairly limited... Hobit (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. GW being the UK publisher of D&D, they are a first-party source, and of course, being contractually linked with TSR, they had no editorial independence. Moreover, GW being the UK equivalent of TSR as far as copyright-holding is concerned, their publication White Dwarf was not editorially independent...given that its editors in chief are all GW employees (the first e.i.c was even the co-founder of GW), they have of course absolutely no freedom to say anything bad on the other products that their boss would distribute. On the contrary, they have a financial interest in promoting D&D. Besides, WD was a source of original content for the D&D game, so completely affiliated. As for Pathfinder, they are not independent of the subject either, since it's a primary source (and the content itself is D&D copy-pasted).Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

YOUR premise is wrong. They did have editorial independence. Basically this is just your belief on a topic you actually don't know much about. So this is really only your opinion, something that runs counter to the people that have been working on these articles for years. Your assertions have far less weight than you think they do. Web Warlock (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I'm aware, there has been a clear historical consensus that White Dwarf is considered a good source to meet WP:GNG requirements. It is only in these recent discussions that WD has been disputed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least that's consistent with how some of you consider primary sources such as supplementary campain settings, for example. But consensus can change, and looking at the last AfD, that's exactly what happened.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

the fact that the RPG industry is a little walled garden"ITICCDMPRIPR" means that we need to take a lot of care and consideration about any assumptions made when considering "independence" -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

White Dwarf in the late 1970s and early 1980s was independent of TSR. It reviewed products of TSR and other RPGs of a variety of gaming systems such as D&D, RuneQuest and Traveller. The argument that it is not independent as they gain financially by promoting is true of about 3/4s of the worlds' popular press WRT some product or other (eg. film mags, gardening mags etc.), and hence invalid. Hence I regard it as a secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Games Workshop was the only licensed publisher of D&D material in the UK in the 1980s. TSR didn't publish any material for the UK, only Games Workshop did. White Dwarf, being the Games Workshop magazine, was not independent of Dungeons & Dragons. Third-party sources (such as independent magazines) "gain financially" in that they sell a magazine, but they are neutral in terms of what they are reviewing because they have no ties to what they're discussing. Non-independent sources (such as White Dwarf and Dragon) "gain financially" in that they sell a magazine, but also because they are financially tied to the product they are discussing, they aren't impartial. Unlike an independent magazine, they aren't going to say "this product our company is publishing is crap, don't buy it". - SudoGhost 14:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

They were licensed to print from Feb 1975 to 1980, but that deal fell through in the mid 1980 when TSR UK was formed. Source "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. Web Warlock (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, TSR UK opened in early 1980 after merger talks fell through. I don't think pre-1980 White Dwarf would be independent though. Later today I'll be able to get my hands on a 1980-ish copy of White Dwarf; I'll take a look and see what it says in the small print. - SudoGhost 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact this split led TSR UK to print "Imagine" magazine for 31 issues. I have Issue #26 of WD right here in front of me from Aug/Sept 1981. The fine print says that it (WD) is copyright by Games Workshop. IT mentions in the next line that "Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Hobbies inc." Would you like a scan of the editorial page? Web Warlock (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure what the "the next line that "Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Hobbies inc." " is relevant for. Every issue of Dragon published by TSR itself has "'Dungeons and Dragons', 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons', 'Advanced D&D' [other game franchises] are registered trademarks owned by TSR, Inc." in their masthead notice section. Its the standard disclaimer/notice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I'm not doubting you, I just wanted to take a look at what it said (plus it gives me a chance to look at older gaming magazines, which is always enjoyable). - SudoGhost 15:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's good cause I can't get the scan loaded in to my sandbox anyway. Here is a blurb that has appeared on the first page of the "Open Box" reviews since about issue 17. "Open Box examines Science Fiction and Fantasy games and rulebooks currently in the shops. The reviews are written by independent authorities who also give the product an overall rating on a 1-10 scale, taking all factors into consideration." Web Warlock (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I have come into this late; WP:DND was not on my normal buffet of WP pages (but it is now.) I'm am one of the ones who expressed reservations at the White Dwarf's "editorial independence" during the period of the magazine's publication, but I will note that is based on "first blush" impression. I think if a company has an exclusive license for distribution, that it is reasonable to infer they have an editorial relationship (or, more difficult to infer that they don't). But my one perspective is not the consensus, and it appears that closing admin chose to accept the compromise as it was originally proposed, so it probably can be construed as disruptive to redirect the article without further discussion.
Editorial independence is a stable of WP:RS, and I would be willing to support a redirect on that basis. That the particular article was about Brownies as a PC race should not enter into it; if the nature of the publication were such that I could attest to editorial independence, if the article makes any noteworthy commentary related to the D&D creature, that should be sufficient. I definitely think it's not appropriate to dismiss it on the topic or title of the article alone. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There are (at least) 2 avenues of discussion going on. 1) the independence (or lack thereof) of the publisher 2) the significant/more than trivial encyclopedic value of the content within the sources.

"about Brownies as a PC race " is in regards to point 2) whether there is anything of encyclopedic value within the source. If all that we can gain from the source is to say "they gave game stats for non official PC race", even if they were fully independent, it would still fail to provide enough content to create an article about the topic of this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The coverage in question for the Brownie article is not a "review" contrary to what by Web Warlock said, but a "character conjuring", and as such does not discuss real-world perspective, or "the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" of the Brownie creature (per a comment from WP:RS/N). It just provides a summary of the creature's in-game characteristics and of the ways to play it as written in Monster Manual, it is a game walkthrough that indeed never adresses the development or reception of the creature, and takes it at face value, fully within the context of a gaming session, rather than as the result of a writer's creative process within the broader context of a distanced, critical analysis. As such I can't consider it as "significant coverage" since it doesn't allow to write "more than a paragraph or a definition of that topic". If the Brownie article was to go to AfD in its current state, it would still not meet WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not required to be a review, and it's explicitly per WP:GNG not required to be the main topic of the article: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I'll note here that I don't have the article, so I don't know that what is there constitutes significant coverage, but it's certainly not appropriate to dismiss it because the article is about retooling the creature as a PC race. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

while it is not required to be a "review" it is required to be encyclopedic. If the only source for Actress X is a 50 page interview, but the only thing in the interview is her talking about her favorite color and how she likes tatoos and the fact that it is raining today but that is nice becuase the weather had been sooooo hot lately, we still couldnt make an encyclopedic article about her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You're stating a lot of things as facts that I think are better characterized as your opinions about what Wikipedia policies ought to say. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your quote is noted, but I find nothing in it that supports your assertion. In fact the "editors may reach a consensus..." bit would tend to support the argument that desires of inclusion or non-inclusion may better be characterized as opinions than direct readings of policies. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading the whole statement in context? Opinions, or maybe more properly interpretation of WP:NOT, may come into play in particular situations. AFTER significant coverage in third party independent sources has been provided, meeting the presumption that the subject could be a stand alone article, editors may still determine that the subject fails to meet the WP:NOT policy and thus is not suitable for a stand alone article. The directions clearly do not state that editors can ignore a lack of significant coverage in third party sources and just decide to let the article stand anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting! I was going to check and see if I had a copy of that White Dwarf issue, but I guess since Folken has already read it and disseminated its contents here, there's no need. On second thought, maybe I better read it for myself after all. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Most excellent, BOZ. My experience with these types of articles in Dragon is that they're generally pretty thorough, multi-page pieces. I also have not read the White Dwarf article, so cannot comment on it, but whoever added the original cite might be able to help out here with some details. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sangrolu, Web Warlock specifically referred to the "review" section of WD magazine, which was incorrect, and I've already said in what "character conjuring" are different from reviews. WP:WHYN already goes into detailing what can be expected from significant coverage, and it is certainly appropriate to dismiss sources which don't conform to that, and my conclusion about WD remains unchanged. As for the WD issue, for the purpose of this discussion I obtained it through "alternative" means and I guess it would be easy for everyone to do the same. To answer Torchiest it's only one column in one page, and doesn't include anything else besides what I've said. The only instance of external authorial instance that I could find was "I feel it is more appropriate for Player Characters to adopt the system used for dwarves, gnomes and halflings". Everything else is pure regurgitation of fiction and gaming characteristics from Monster Manual. You know, the closing admin is the second non-involved contributor to mention the benefits of "real world coverage" in sources. I don't think continually ignoring external inputs will prove an efficient long-term strategy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? I get the feeling people are conflating two discussion here. White Dwarf did have reviews, and WebWarlock mentioned them above, but that wasn't what I was referring to and I don't think he called the Browie article a review. Certainly the reviews in WD would be a useful resource, but I would want some assurances there is a degree of editorial independence (which looking at the above discussion a bit closer, there does appear to be some argument for, but certainly deserves some further discussion.) - Sangrolu (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To clear things up, at one point the discussion on WD's independence or not centered on its reviews, and I was only pointing out that the character conjurings that are used in the articles are not the same as the reviews that came to be discussed here by Web Warlock. I did not say covergae needed to be labelled a "review", only that reviews have better chance at meeting requirements, and that we don't have either reviews or anything else on Brownie that could meet those requirements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)