Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:20, 7 February 2023

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. JIP | Talk 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable game guide. No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of D&D publications. Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  Really? I'm not seeing it there... Hobit (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  You're welcome. --Jack Merridew 09:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep has independent reviews the equivalent of most gaming material, whether RPGs or computer games. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. At present there is a single independent secondary source given: a user review on a fan site. This is pretty feeble as sources go in non-RPG articles. If it really is typical of articles on RPGs (as you say), then people with an interest in such articles should really get their act together and source them better, instead of getting all defensive when an editor wants to apply the general guidelines. I'm sure that anyone with back issues of gaming magazines would be able to find more sources and fix the problem easily enough, but I can't see why a single "World of Greyhawk" article isn't enough (with the supplement-by-supplement proliferation confined to wikia). D&D has "real-world" notability; and so has "Greyhawk" to a certain extent - but it still has to be shown that this Greyhawk supplement does. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Nom did not read the article before nominating it. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  comment Do you have any evidence to support this uncivil claim that appears to be a violation of WP guideline for assuming good faith? GundamsRus (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  comment Going through his edits, I find that he votes keep on every AFD, and also makes frequent uncivil claims. RogueNinja_talk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Stop WP:STALKing me, GundamsRus. I will not argue anything with a disruptive sock puppet. RogueNinja, I know full well you havn't actually looked, because your claim is demonstrably false. I'm not even going to debate it with you as the closing admin is quite capable of clicking my contribs button themselves. Jtrainor (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  comment I have indeed looked through your contributions. I urge any admins that you bring into this to do the same. RogueNinja_talk 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  comment. I imagine he did, and like me thought that a single fan review on a "community" website is insufficient sourcing. If you can find better sources that indicate why this supplement is notable enough for a stand-alone article, please do so. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per Jtrainor & Caliber. Gavin has a habit of not reading &/or misunderstanding articles, as evidenced by his history. One can read more here.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Casliber and Robbstrd. BOZ (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is getting beyond ridiculous. Gavin.Collins needs to take his self imposed jihad against RPG articles somewhere else. This article is referenced, it does have real world significance (it is part of the Living Greyhawk campaign) and given time I can uncover half a dozen or so references, third-party or otherwise, to support this claim. Nominator is now going beyond civility into being a WP:DICK. Web Warlock (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep RPGnet.com is not a "fan site". Book is notable and article is sourced. If the article needs additional sources, a refimprove tag might be appropriate. But a deletion nomination isn't necessary or helpful. Rray (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep per above. This is a good article, it just needs to be fixed a little, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.81.182 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep Added a link to a number of reviews. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I don't think any of the sources cited can be classed as reliable secondary sources. The enworld reference is a fansite, which is effectively a form of self-publication and cannot be classed as a reliable source. The RPG.net article is mainly regurgitated primary source material, and the review ends with the words If "vanilla" D&D is your idea of a good time, this oldie is still a goodie, which is hardly a strong indicator of notability by any standard. Without reliable secondary sources, the guidelines indicate that this game guide is not suitable for Misplaced Pages, as the RPG.net article says it all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. In this context the work is said to be "vanilla" because it is the standard D&D world. Think of it like vanilla ice cream. Not non-notable (it's the most common form of ice cream AFAIK), but because it is so standard it is considered bland. That's what makes it notable. Again, as mentioned here it would be helpful if you understood something about the area you are editing in. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment also, enworld is pretty darn reliable. It is well respected in the field for certain. Again, it would help if you took the time to learn about the stuff you are tagging/AfDing/commenting on. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment There is so little content, context or analysis in this article, it does not take more than a moment to see that it lacks real-world notability, even for a non-expert such as myself. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Did you follow the links to each of the reviews? The page itself is just a quick plot summary, but it links to each of the reviews. Some of them are fairly shallow, others aren't. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Also, any idea why this isn't showing up in game-related deletions? Hobit (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (who is most often right) --Jack Merridew 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Webwarlock below; nb: his merge target World of Greyhawk redirects to Greyhawk, so merge there. --Jack Merridew 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  Merge to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting and see Talk:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer#Merge Proposals --Jack Merridew 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; one non-trivial independent source isn't sufficient to establish notability. I'll change my vote if a second gets added. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment the one source quoted (RPG.net) is mainly a regurgitation of the primary material, so I am not sure what you mean. If 3 reliable secondary sources are added, I am duty bound to withdraw the nomination, but I have not found any so far. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  Added some, still digging for more. Web Warlock (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I note three new references have been found that support the comment "Living Greyhawk Gazeteer was better recieved by players. Most reviews were generally positive". This is trivial coverage, and does not support any claim to notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  And...I am still working on this, I have actually read these articles, you have not. Besides "trivial" is a personal opinion and can not be used to delete an article per WP:ITSCRUFT. Web Warlock (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  But the references themselves are fine. The article is very short, there is no reason to dive into each review, nor is that required for notability. They the articles exist and are relevant meets the notability issues raised. Certain the article can be improved, but that's not what AfD is for. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• NEW VOTE - MERGE - New plan. Merge to World of Greyhawk. I have spent a few hours researching and I have enough I think to close this debate at 'No Consensus' I do not have enough for the inevitable re-listing that is sure to happen in a couple of weeks after this. SO. This would be better suited merged with World of Greyhawk with some information also shared with Living Greyhawk. Does that work for everyone? Web Warlock (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm fine with a merge, if that's what you want to do. You've done a lot of fine work that I'd hate to see lost, although you are right to say this looks like it's heading towards a no consensus. BOZ (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  I think it would produce a better, stronger article. Plus it would take 5 weaker articles and reduce them to just one. Web Warlock (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  Could you list the 5 you are referring to; a close as merge could apply to all and and could produce results many parties would be happy with. --Jack Merridew 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Gavin: Would you be willing to remove your AfD here on a good faith basis to allow me 24 hours to complete edits and a merge to the Greyhawk or World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting (don't know which yet, want to see what people want first)? That way I can work on the article(s) in question and do a proper redirect. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you will get a concensus to merge from RPG editors, so I decline. I doubt this article will be deleted if it gives you any comfort, even though it should be deleted or merged with a notable topic supported by reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

comment - at this point I am waiting to hear back to see what everyone else has to say. I could do this either way, but in the end I think a Merge would produce a more useful article. Web Warlock (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per Web Warlock. Relevant material about this book, and various other books, would likely be better served in one article that would address them all, including all sources and such for each. As to Web Warlock's suggestions, probably one article at Greyhawk would be best including this book, and others such as World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Disagree with the merge. This is a book and has a large number of reviews associated with it. If that isn't enough real-world notability it is a large part of Living Greyhawk, and 8-year long running game with a huge number of players (not to mention websites). Hobit (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  I understand your point of view. Right now I no longer have the bandwidth to look up more sources for this. I was even diving into LexisNexis just to be sure I covered all my bases. Web Warlock (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  Given that it's probably going to be kept by a "no consensus" decision, this article will only be brought up for deletion again soon enough. Merging this article, with others that are related, will create a stronger overall article that will have lots of secondary sources. See the proposal at Talk:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer put forth by User:Webwarlock. I think that putting together all of the relevant articles into one is a much better conclusion. Frankly, even if this article is kept with a "keep" conclusion, I still expect to see it put up again for deletion in the future (despite my good faith in the process). The number of websites devoted to the Living Greyhawk campaign isn't really relevant in terms of the WP:N guidelines for notability. The preponderance/lack of "Google hits" isn't a valid measure of (non) notability by themselves. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep meets notability and verifiability guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Referenced, with reviews that demonstrate notability within the field, a field that wikipedia should be covering according to the first pillar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - overall there appears to be a disparity regarding how sources are being evaluated between members of the RPG wikiproject and everyone else. By the standards that usually applied to articles, none of the sources provided are reliable. For example, this is a noticeboard, which doesn't wouldn't usually be considered a reliable source. Also, none of the magazines listed appear to be independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.