The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources to establish notability outside fictional world. — Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I do agree that the outcome of this AfD should be some variant of "keep", ideally from my point of view a "redirect", but I'm anxious to ensure this assessment is made on the basis of a clear and accurate picture of the sources, which is why I'm challenging you on this.
The Open Game Licence (or License, if you're American) would enable us to reproduce the in-game statistics, if Wikipedian policies allowed such a thing, but I think its resemblance to the text of Wikipedia doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It is in essence a commercial agreement, explicitly (per Ryan Dancey) designed to drive sales, even though no money changes hands.
I also want to say that "Paizo" as discussed here means effectively the same thing as "Pathfinder" mentioned earlier in the debate. We aren't talking about an additional, separate source when bringing up Paizo.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Wrangling between A Nobody and Blackbirdz hatted. Take it to dispute resolution folks, this is an AfD.
|
---|
|
Casliber (below) introduces an important point. There will be "analysis" of the creature published—certainly in The Dragon magazine (but the said magazine was for most of its history a house publication of TSR, the former copyright holders of the Dungeons and Dragons name), and likely in White Dwarf (from the days when White Dwarf was independent, though it is not now). However, this is analysis along the lines of how much of a challenge it presents in game, versus what in-game rewards are received for defeating it, and will likely be from an entirely in-universe perspective.
In other words, it can be shown that mimics are covered in multiple publications, some quasi-independent and some fully commercially independent of the original publisher. What cannot be shown is any treatment of them that is not from an in-universe perspective.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 07:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources to establish notability outside fictional world. — Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I do agree that the outcome of this AfD should be some variant of "keep", ideally from my point of view a "redirect", but I'm anxious to ensure this assessment is made on the basis of a clear and accurate picture of the sources, which is why I'm challenging you on this.
The Open Game Licence (or License, if you're American) would enable us to reproduce the in-game statistics, if Wikipedian policies allowed such a thing, but I think its resemblance to the text of Wikipedia doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It is in essence a commercial agreement, explicitly (per Ryan Dancey) designed to drive sales, even though no money changes hands.
I also want to say that "Paizo" as discussed here means effectively the same thing as "Pathfinder" mentioned earlier in the debate. We aren't talking about an additional, separate source when bringing up Paizo.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Wrangling between A Nobody and Blackbirdz hatted. Take it to dispute resolution folks, this is an AfD.
|
---|
|
Casliber (below) introduces an important point. There will be "analysis" of the creature published—certainly in The Dragon magazine (but the said magazine was for most of its history a house publication of TSR, the former copyright holders of the Dungeons and Dragons name), and likely in White Dwarf (from the days when White Dwarf was independent, though it is not now). However, this is analysis along the lines of how much of a challenge it presents in game, versus what in-game rewards are received for defeating it, and will likely be from an entirely in-universe perspective.
In other words, it can be shown that mimics are covered in multiple publications, some quasi-independent and some fully commercially independent of the original publisher. What cannot be shown is any treatment of them that is not from an in-universe perspective.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 07:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply