Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thessalmonster (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thessalmonster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable fictional creature, fails WP:GNG. Being mentioned in one episode of Stranger Things is not enough to establish notability. The previous AfD closed as delete, but the page was restored afterwards for unknown reason. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD. TTN (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G4, a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is slightly more here than when it was last deleted, but not much. As far as I can tell, it was undeleted to become a redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (which has since been deleted). That said, the most recent source is significant and independent (though I am unsure how reliable Elite Daily is). I see a couple more articles of similar depth hidden amongst the D&D fan sites and pinterest links produced by the google button above. Of all the D&D articles I have seen of late, this is the first that I am not inclined to simply kill with fire. Though I do wonder about an item whose only non-primary source is in the "In Popular Culture" section. The elite daily source does give some of the history of this monster, but they might have been pulling from this article (and creating a circular reference, yay!) Rockphed (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~@Rockphed: Should I remove the speedy deletion request from the page? Not a very active user (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, I didn't notice that the request had already been removed. Not a very active user (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed it because, while I am not sure that it is notable enough for an article, when I actually looked at the source it was both significant and independent. Yes, it talks about the Thessalmonsters (and specifically the Thessalhydra) in light of their use in Stranger Things, but it then goes on to explain their chronological position (in a book that was released in 1983, the year that Stranger Things is set in), and gives a little exposition on things like "unlike the demogorgon which was invented in 350 AD and was a staple of medieval bestiaries, the Thessalhydra was a pure D&D invention". I'll see what I can find and try to put together a WP:THREE. Rockphed (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The creature itself is non-notable outside of being mentioned in "Strangers Things", which I agree is not enough to establish notability. As pointed out by Rockphed, the fact that the only non-primary source being used is for the "In Popular Culture" section is not a good sign. I also noted that source, and others talking about it in relation to Stranger Things, were entirely based on the false speculation that the creature (or at least something named after it) would be a major part of Season 2, which, as it turned out, was not the case. If Rockphed does come up with some decent sourcing, I will reconsider, but my own searches did not bring up anything that I would consider to be enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to get three and only found two, and, though they are both significant, neither is technically about "thessalmonster", but about "thessalhydra".

Bettridge, Daniel (2017). The Unofficial Stranger Things A-Z. Kings Road Publishing. ISBN 9781786068507.
"This Character From Dungeons & Dragons May Be A Big Part Of 'Stranger Things' Season 2". Elite Daily.

Which, oddly, say the same thing. Pretty much all they do is describe the monster, note that it came out in the early 80s, and describe the speculation that it was going to be the big bad of the 2nd season of Stranger Things (which speculation turned out to be false, but eh, whatever). If the two were not both so closely tied to Stranger Things I might have a different opinion. Or if I had found more than 2 sources that were significant and independent and even reliable adjacent (which is about where I think the two sources I listed are). All the other sources I could find were either rampant speculation opinion columns or only name dropped the beast (or both). I don't know if this is a target for merging into Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons. Rockphed (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2019 (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.