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 keep. The overall consensus seems to support keeping this article, as unlike some of the other, recently redirected similar D&D monsters, this has at least received some coverage in what many participants consider decent sources for this kind of material. Merging this to the list article is a reasonable argument given the good-faith disagreement on the exact line of notability for these kind of things, but multiple users assert that there is enough sourceable content that it would be excessive for an entry on a list article - supporting its continued existence as a standalone article at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 11:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gelatinous cube[edit]

Gelatinous cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All other oozes were redirected to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. This one has a bit better sourcing, through I think it is insufficient to merit a pass at GNG/NFICTION for the stand-alone article (two paragraphs in a niche column that is close to blog quality, one paragraph in a list of monsters, another paragraph at another list. Neither is an in-depth analysis, just a fan 'journalist' tongue-in-cheek commentary. Redirect to Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) or one of the monster lists? Or would anyone want to argue the current refs suffice for keep? BEFORE does not show anything much better, I am afraid (ok, [1] is in-depth but it is a niche fan-site not far from blog level again). It's better than most other DnD monsters, but I am afraid it still falls on the wrong side of GNG, not enough reliable sources/in-depth coverage, just few fan-pages. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this one does have some independent sources, but failing that at worst merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and improve per WP:NEXIST see: ^[1][2] among others. The page may even require a disambiguation as some point in the future because of the band named after the monster.^[3]. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As non-notable, almost all "sources" are minor listicles. "It's big in Dungeons and Dragons" is not a valid argument for keep. It's possible that the overall monster trope, blob monster, may be notable enough for an article, but the gelatinous cube itself doesn't seem so._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; iconic, and there are a few good enough sources. There are probably more out there. There are a few hits on Google Scholar (though nothing substantial, I don't think) but Google News throws up lots of pages that could work as sources; this, this, this, and this from the first page, for instance. There's enough out there for an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Most are pop culture listicles. "9 scariest monsters", "15 weirdest creatures", "125 greatest monsters". It's certainly not "significant" coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you say so. Plenty of hits on Google Books, too; some third-party material about their role in the game, for example. I can't access all the pages, but there's perhaps useful stuff in Dungeons and Drawings: An Illustrated Compendium of Creatures, Through Dungeons Deeper, and The Monsters Know What They're Doing. I'm pretty sure there's enough out there to write a decent article, and I don't think the current article is that shabby, so I stand by my comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of the sort of thing that's out there. I could add more, but I don't want to spend too long on the article if it's going to end up deleted. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That example, which is about gelatinous/ooze/blob creatures in fiction, seems like it would work a lot better in a broad concept article like maybe Blob monster. Gelatinous ooze on its own is simply too narrow a topic. As an example, I created the article Gargoyle (monster) which is notable, even though Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons) probably would not survive AfD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes; it perhaps has a place in both articles (if they exist). My point is that there's something to say; the article can be much more than in-universe information or lists of books in which it appears. We can have some discussion about inspirations and origins, roles/uses in the game, critical response, and real-world impact (e.g., perhaps the band mentioned above if we have a good source). That's a whole lot more than most other D&D monsters, which doesn't surprise me, because it's so iconic. Again, if all these sources were pulled together, we could end up with a decent article. I think there's room for legitimate disagreement in cases like this; it crosses the bar in my eyes, but perhaps not in yours. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded the article some more, please take that into account. Daranios (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters. Not convinced that it passes the GNG sufficiently to need a stand-alone article. The Reception section just says it's notable within the franchise and should be covered somewhere on wikipedia. The other three section can fit in the two columns of the merge target. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect -Listicles, especially ones so extremely focused on a single characteristic like "X D&D monster," are bottom of the barrel in terms of establishing notability. They are basically filler sources to bolster an already notable article. They should never be the primary means of trying to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters. There is some non-primary coverage, but it appears to amount to being little more than just a description of what it is. Even those lists being used as sources are just brief paragraphs describing the creature, and does not contain any real information that could be used to sustain an independent article. That said, the coverage does at least make it one of the few D&D creatures that should actually be on the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is sufficient information that it would be too much for Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FobTown (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per clear iconic stature. Artw (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient cumulative coverage apparently satisfying GNG requirements. GNG does not require that its requirements be satisfied within any set number of sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A few blurbs in "The 9 scariest most unforgettable monsters from dungeons dragons" type of lists is hardly iconic-establishing. A redirect of the name to a DnD list is fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep sources listed above are multiple, indepenent and cover the topic in-depth. So WP:N is met. Doesn't need to be "iconic-establishing". Also [2], [3] and many others show that the monster exists in fiction outside of D&D. Hobit (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments of User:BOZ, User:FobTown and User:Hobit. In addition to all the secondary sources mentioned, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193, has something to say about the origin and role of the gelatinous cube as a tertiary source. Daranios (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interestingly, The Ashgate Encyclopedia does call the gelatinous cube "iconic" on p. 194. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great spot; the mention on the previous page is also useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Of Dice and Men and Ashgate Encyclopedia are quality sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I love that a gelatinous cube is a thing. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• it was also a very scary thing to a kid who did a lot of caving and tunnel exploring! Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I know that WP:NEXIST says that existence of sources trumps their use in the article, but I still think its useful to look at how sources are actually used here. If there are good sources that support notability, as some editors are claiming, then they should be used to back up non-trivial statements. But at least at this point, everything sourced in the article is trivial: publication history (which exists for every D&D monster), a note on amebas, fictional ecology, and a fairly unimpressive "reception" section that boils down to: some people like the monster. I don't think this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. If the sources offer anything more, it should at least be mentioned here, and preferable added to the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BenKuykendall, you just named practically every section of the article and said that they were all trivial. There are quality sources backing up "Creative origin" and "Fictional ecology", both of them relevant to the subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there are more sources above that cover other aspects - such as the role they play in the game. But to repeat what I have already said, I'm not going to spend time improving the article if it's just going to be deleted. As you yourself accept, BenKuykendall, you're holding the article to a higher standard than the relevant policies/guidelines demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (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.