Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 7 February 2008

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable roleplaying game weapon. Transwiki to the DND Wikia. Jfire (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki. No independent sources so fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's one RPGnet review now, added with significant rewriting - and the review's definitely not a love-fest. Don't know how much that counts as independent, but it seems like a fair review to me. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The review is definitely independent and by a notable game designer who was doing mostof his work at the time for a rival gaming company. Not sure if his status was free-lance at the time. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, or Redirect to either List of Dungeons & Dragons modules or List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. "Axe of the Dwarvish Lords" is, like the Rod of Seven Parts, both the name of an artifact and the name of a module centered around the item. The article needs to be edited to reflect that fact. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to straight-up Keep, thanks to all the changes that have been made in the past few days. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Your theatrical change of vote fools no one: you created this article in the first place, and your vote was always going to be a keep. None of the sources that have been added are reliable, and notability is still unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Touchy? You'll notice I haven't added anything to the article recently. Honestly, when this AFD started I figured it would be a goner and no one would care enough to do anything for it which is the main reason I said anything about redirecting, but obviously I was proven wrong - a great deal of effort has gone into this article in an attempt to save it, and you'll see me thanking people all over the place in this discussion because of it. I applaud their efforts, even if you're worried that this may be one more AFD that you'll lose. (And if you're not worried, then why comment at all?) If people honestly believe that my vote was "always going to be a keep", then the closing admin will see through anything I have to say and discount my opinion, and if not then I will be afforded the same respect that any other editor deserves. Maybe one day, I'm hoping and praying, you will learn that just because Gavin says it is so, does not mean it is so. My experiences with you over the last few months have not borne that out yet, but only time will tell. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have awarded you the Barnstar of Recovery for your excellent theatrical performance. If you give up spamming articles with no content, context, analysis or evidence of notability, such as this one, I am sure you will have promising future on the stage.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, does not seem to be notable as it's own article and is well represented in the list. Perhaps merge some fo the main information to the list - Dumelow (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestion Someone needs to figure out if this should be the artifact, the module or both. Frankly I'd go with a disambiguation page, and point to the list of artifact and the list of modules (at least until someone writes an article on the module which likely meets WP:N.). Hobit (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be an article about both - the article came first (1979?), and the module came as a result of the artifact's long-standing history within the game (1999?). BOZ (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Seconding Hobit's suggestion: merge to two different pages and turn this into disambiguation. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How are you going to address the notability concerns? Jfire (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By no longer having a separate article dedicated to the subject. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• One thing it should definitely not be is split - there's just not anywhere near enough notability to sustain them as separate items. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a disambig page, either. I think we should simply redirect to one or the other, and then make sure that the redirect target is well wikilinked to the other instance. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll disagree. As there is both an item and a module, and we are redirecting to lists, I think we're fine with a disambiguation page. If we are willing to do a redirect, we should be willing to do a disamb. independent of notability. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules or List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo 23:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, nothing here worth merging (I recommend that merge target over List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as at least a D&D module is an actual real-world publication, not a fictional item of dubious encyclopedic notability). --Stormie (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons rather than modules because artifact came first and appears outside the module. I'm not too fussed though, as we cannot guess which "Axe" readers will be searching for. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per BOZ. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question Anyone willing to fix this up? The module has no problems meeting notability requirements IMO, but the artifact I'm less sure of. BOZ, if you want to keep them together, the article needs some work... Hobit (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I really don't know what to do for it honestly. I'll try to take a look at it and see what, if anything, I can do. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep One of the oldest mentioned artifacts in the original D&D system (goes back to the Eldridge Wizardry supplement, per Jon Pickens and the Encyclopedia Magica). I'll try to define this a bit. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Does the intro fix help? BusterD (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It does look a whole lot better at least, thanks. :) As far as how much that will matter... we'll see, I guess. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Artifacts are tough to destroy/delete anyway. Gotta throw it into the volcano in which it was made, or break it with a footstep of the humble ant (per DMG). I was wondering how anybody was ever going to close this AfD (Axe for Deletion) discussion without so much as a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. (Does English Misplaced Pages even have an admin who can cast 9th level wizard spells? Maybe German Misplaced Pages...) BusterD (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tags for issues which have been addressed. Since notability was listed in nom for deletion, I'll not remove that until this discussion is closed, one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - you and others have done some awesome work! It's almost completely unrecognizable from its previous form. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to point out I correctly predicted the potent magic of the Axe would prevent a hasty closing of this AfD. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

True. :) But it's not safe yet... BOZ (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There is a sufficient amount of material that can be included in the article as it is well-known in D&D circles since practically its beginning. The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings has its own page along similar reasoning. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:26 2008 February 3 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, keeping info for GPDL reasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I was going to say Merge but there seems to be enough information to support a full article, and there is at least one reliable secondary source. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional artifact outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Six of the seven sources cited originate from the game publishers (TSR and Wizards of the Coast) except one self-published review, which was written by a S. John Ross who has worked for the publishers. The majority of the article is plot summary with a heavy in-universe perspective that fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, which means that this article falls outside the scope of Misplaced Pages. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Non-notable; mention in List of D&D Axes or a list of your choice. Second choice; throw it into The Cracks of Doom. --Jack Merridew 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a notable fictitious artifact with a long history of publication, and third-party sources exist. Merging it into List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, while a sensible option at first glance, would be counterproductive on account of the length of the article and the amount of information it contains. Typically, subsections this long are split off from articles, rather than merged into them. This is long enough to warrant a page, and well written up, with the proper out-of-universe perspective. Freederick (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY _contribs 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Adequate notability Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is one reliable enough secondary source and enough information for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates