Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreadmire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. This is all a bit of a confusing mess of new accounts, unsigned commentary and inter-personal mini-feuding. Nevertheless, the reasoned argumentation that there is leans clearly enough toward deleting. The publications by this author are really pretty minimal also, and so there is none bestowed upon this book by transference. (I would also observe that the article is massively over-detailed and entirely disproportionate to its own needs.) I do not think it met any of the recent castings of G11, however. Someone mentions that an admin can see if it was an AOL IP or not; unfortunately they cannot see the IP underlying a logged-in account. -Splash - tk 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadmire

Bumped from speedy; neutral. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Dreadmire. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 08:31Z

Also List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals and List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire —Percy Snoodle 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the speedy reason given was "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article" (G11). Yomanganitalk 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Looking at the EZboard link provided on the talk page it's clear this article is trying to gain publicity for this book. Delete, is because this smacks of advertising. I do not believe Wikipedia should be used as the repository for every single stat or book or episode related to a certain subject. But and this is a big but and the reason for the Weak delete, is that precedent has been set all over Wikipedia, using a term I've noticed recently of fancruft i.e. stats of everysingle WWE wrestler. There are far better resources out on t'interweb for this type of thing. For me it would be better as an external link on maybe the RPG article that links to a comprehensive list of these books. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising.--Robbstrd 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you read the Spellbinder Games EZboard link provided on the talk page you will see there is a discussion with the author and his publisher. Apparently they agree with Khukri about the fancruft (nice word by the way). However, I also agree that precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres. For example I offer Mystara, Greyhawk, Eberron and Erik Mona, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books". As to fancruft, Dreadmire certainly is part of that category. But Dreadmire also had noteworthy legal issues, it introduced new paradigm to the fantasy gaming genre, and the author, Randy Richards, has been a well known figure in the gaming industry for over 10 years. --Cryogenesis 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The talk page covers the true issue with Randy, ego. He has no body of work and no fame beyond what any fan would have. Dreadmire has set no records of note. There is no legal status as no legal proceedings were conducted, the book was simply rejected and the project dropped. No new paradigms were introduced, I do have a copy of the book, most of the swamp information was copied from other public sources and no relevant game information was produced. The site is self promotion and spam. Currently Randy has no associations with gamming. He hits the local cons only to shill his book. He rejects all views contrary to his own and lashes out at anyone with a different viewpoint. He is a master at the sockpuppet. Currently Randy owns his book site, the spellbinder site and the message board. He owns the Spellbinder and dreadmire name user names, I believe he is also Cryogenesis as well as I fail to see any person who would want a worship site for him. Deletion is earned just by the need to make this something it is not. Lets wait 5 years and let Randy publish a few more books under his company Spellbinder then we can revisit this.Quode 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Its obvious Quode has some sort of vendetta against the author. His words just ooze hatred. Might I suggest we employ "speedy keep", and consider banning the IP of user Quode for abuse of the delete function as per Wikipedia guidelines on such matters.
  • Comment I suffered unprovoked attacks for writing a single review. Again, I stand up to bullies. If I must be censured for promoting the truth so be it. But remember, Randy/Cryogenesis, cannot offer a shred of proof for any of his declarations so far and I have offered proof as I can for mine. Quode 02:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As I said, this is personal for you. That has no place here. You desperately WANT your accusations to be true. You felt slighted and now you seek revenge. Okay, fine, but you should post your accusation on the Spellbinder Games forum, or some other gaming forum. It has nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is primarily "notability". If someone had to be moral or ethical to be a part of Wikipedia, then there would be no articles on Adolph Hitler or David Koresh. Trying to convince us that Randy Richards is crazy or unethical has nothing to do with the notability of the Dreadmire article about his book. It does have to do with any article about Randy Richards -- and ironically such accusations may even increase his notability. Good luck with your vendetta, just please take it off Wikipedia.
  • Comment Suggested further reading for Quode: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:Notability. --Cryogenesis 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You first, especially the latter. And throw on WP:Reliable sources while you're indulging in your amateur legal practice. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No need to get insulting. There are no lagalities involved here, just subjective Wikipedia Guidelines. Thats why we're having this discussion. --Cryogenesis 07:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Read this: WP:Wikilawyering. Note the irony of whinging that "[t]here are no lagalities involved here" while trying utilize its techniques. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "Dreadmire earned a special place in history as the first D&D book to ever place an entire campaign in a swamp setting"? That's a fairly desperate bid for notability. The author's page (Randy Richards) is even worse. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above quote is accurate. It may seem trivial, but its a game, and no one is saying its noteworthy beyond that genre. Its certainly no better than the wrestling. You have to intimately know the genre to understand why the book is notable. If the Dreadmire entry is deleted, there are going to be hundreds - maybe thousands - of other deletions of books, campaign settings, TV shows, editors, and authors that must follow. Precedent has already been set in this genre. If its gets deleted I am sure someone else will eventually add it back without realizing it was deleted. No big deal I guess, I just hate to see all my work go to waste and someone else get to enter it. If it needs to be "cleaned up" then clean it up, don't delete it. Suggestions on cleanup are welcome.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The above quote is accurate I never claimed it was false, which is sort of the point: a false claim would have the virtue of being reasonable if it were true. As for "cleaning up", as the New York Times has said, if you wash garbage, you just wind up with clean garbage.All right, actually that was me being quoted by the Times in an article about AFDs. But it's verifiable! And true! And totally trivial! --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what other ONLINE references I can point to. To prove to you the book is, without a single doubt, notable, I would have to take you to a few dozen conventions to watch and talk to the people playing the game, and talk to industry game designers and companies. I would have to show you the other reviews and articles written in magazines that don't have their content available on the internet (which is rare). I would have to take you to game stores across the U.S. to get the scuttlebutt on the book by gamers. Its not like Wrestlemania where its easy to see on TV. This is something that takes place in real life, in garages and game cons all over the world. The links I provided give some indication to the level of interest about Randy Richards and his published works. Dungeons & Dragons books, even the ones produces by Wizards of the Coast, are not likely to be reviewed on national television or other more established book sources, which is what it seems that you want. The convention circuit is where such books are reviewed - with money and play time, and guest spots for the author. I have provided several of these links to establish a verifiable pattern. Explain to me what more you want and I will try to provide it. --Cryogenesis 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreeing with Robbstrd, this is fairly blatant advertising. --Idran 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why all the discussion about Ego and advertising? Shouldn't this be about the Product? Has anyone here actually read the book? I have. I own a copy bought with my hard earned cash and the fact is... I like it. Being a Gamer of 24 some odd years, I've seen the Golden Age of Role Playing Games. I have also seen the business side, where corporations try to turn a profit on my favorite hobby. I've seen an assortment of products: some that were fairly absurd and some with stories that gripped me and made my imagination run wild. I would get an idea that would start a campaign that went on for months and gave me many an enjoyable hour sitting with friends. Randy Richards book, "Dreadmire", reminds me a good deal of the wonderful modules and products of the "younger" days of DnD.. It gave me quite a shock of nostalgia when I first thumbed through it and I'm glad I bought it. What about the fact that The Ancient Druids left several mysterious artifacts behind, many of them sunk into the swamp? What about the possible side effects of "Dark Pollen" created by the "Somesuch" and can something be "brought back from the Dark Side"?? Does anyone want to discuss the 'pros and cons' of having Leacon the Ducklord as your Deity of choice? He, Randy, gave us a Great deal of information while keeping some portions ambiguous enough to allow the DM to "run" with an idea he/she might have. Personally, I'm tired of spending a great deal of money for a thin book which Dreadmire certainly is not. It was well worth the money in my opinion and deserving of a mention here for other 'pure gamers' to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.230.180.50 (talk • contribs) 01:54, October 12, 2006.
Comment The above anonymous IP is a single purpose account.
  • Delete To add some clarity there were no nominations made for Randy or Dreadmire at the Gen Con EN World RPG Awards *[1]. This is where the fans speak. No fan nominated or voted for Dreadmire. Granted there will be those who like the product but for the ENnie awards a large fan base is required. At major message boards there are no debates of the merits of the book, the spellbinder site is dead. Compared to Necromancer Games which is alive over the full hobby and its new offerings. Quode 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This was discussed on the message board. ENnie nominations for books that were published in 1995 are nominated at the beginning of 1996. Since the book was published in December of 1995, and worldwide book distribution did not begin until Spring of 1996, there was no chance to nominate Dreadmire. It is my understanding from reading the website, that since it was technically published in 1995 it will never be able to be nominated for an ENnie, even if its the greatest D&D book ever published.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Dreadmire was published in December 2005 and the awards cover the time from 2005 to 2006 as the awards are in the summer. Thus Dreadmire was eligible. As an example to avoid confusion we have this winner, Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition *[2] It was released before dreadmire and had won Quode 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until Spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination. Seriously, its got 220,000 words. Thats at least 6 months of reading for me, let along playing the game and getting a feel for the campaign setting.
  • Delete I cannot see how this article satisfies WP:notability (yet), it also reads like advertising. MidgleyDJ 08:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A quote from the notability link you just provided, "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The External Links in the article are designed to do this, providing multiple independent predominantly reliable sources.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And as I said before, precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres, such as Eberron, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books".--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestions on how to improve the article would be helpful. I would prefer these suggestions came from people that didn't hate the author or took sides in the legal issue surrounding the original manuscript.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the most relevant notability guideline would be the proposed WP:BK. Actually, however crufty the article might be, I believe that the book does barely meet the proposed criteria on grounds that it has received multiple reviews so I would (reluctantly) recommend keeping the article. It might however need a very thorough rewrite. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Change my mind to delete I was not careful enough the first time around: there is no indication that the said reviews are non-trivial. Many of those are from open forums and posted by fans or, for all we know, the author himself. Some are just mentions in passing and not actual reviews with any sort of depth and it's questionnable whether these are truly independent. Moreover, the obvious sockpuppetry on this AfD is a very ominous sign and my recent arguing with Cryogenesis (talk • contribs) on the article about the author does lead me to think that he is, if not Randy Richards himself, then certainly someone with close ties to him. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggestions on which parts to re-write would be appreciated. The only reason I added all the links was because I had to show the book was Notable and Verifiable. If the article remains undeleted, then the external links could be removed. Would that make it seem less like an advertisment? Personally I don't care about any of the External links at all, including the ones to the publisher's website. I was just copying the format of the Eberron article, thinking that was "normal" for a Notable and Verifiable fancruft Wikipedia entry.--Cryogenesis 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Obvious advertising, the article clearly doesn't satisfy WP:notability .--Cliveklg

  • Keep I bought Dreadmire during the Summer when it first became available in my area at my local hobby store. My original intention was to read the book and knock the wind out of it in an online review. I had high hopes of pointing out all the IP violations. That never happened because 1) there isn't any I could find, and 2) the book was just that darn good. A game is a game, and no one is going to argue (hopefully) that Dreadmire is going to solve world hunger or bring peace to the Middle East. And I know there are a lot of harsh feelings against the author. The book he wrote is unbelievably engaging and detailed. So good in fact that we have a club here locally we call "Dread Gamers" and we get together every week to play in the Dreadmire campaign setting. I can't speak for everyone. Its a popular book in my circle of friends. I know at least 14 gamers that own a copy. If people can separate the book from their bias against the author, you'll see why Dreadmire deserves an article on Wikipedia.--JLsan 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Probable sock-puppet. This user has never before contributed to WP except for this posting. Fairsing 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It sounds like a hodge podge of half-baked ideas and juvenile scribblings
  • No vote :: however, I earnestly request the closing admin to review the contribution history of the vociferous Mr. Quode, who, it would appear, edits Wiki~ solely to pursue a campaign against this article, and that concerning Dreadmire's author, Mr.Richards. He alleges sockpuppetry against Mr.Richards :: I hubly suggest that User:Quode may be a pseudonym for a Wiki~ editor with a grudge. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete. I would request the closing admin review the contribution history of user Cryogenesis. This user's entire edit history reads like a massive, interlinked set of advertisements for the non-notable author "Randy Richards" and this particular publication. User Cryogenesis has (as of the time of this posting), edited the Dreadmire article (a book written by Randy Richards), uploaded images of said publication, added lists of fictional Dreadmire-specific plants and animals, created an article on Spellbinder Games (the publisher of Dreadmire, and apparently no other works despite the fact that it is claimed Spellbinder has existed since 1975), created a biography of Randy Richards, and made almost no other contributions beyond a few edits on other D&D-related topics. In addition, several of these inter-linked articles have been created since the Dreadmire article was nominated for deletion. It would seem *highly* likely that Cryogeneis is in fact Randy Richards, and that he is in blatant violation of WP:AUTO. In fact, if you examine the edit history for all of these articles, you will find that Cryogenesis has created all of them, and made almost all of the substantive edits to these articles. There's a WP term for this, which escapes me at the moment, but essentially this is a circle-jerk type of phenomenon. Cryogenesis has created and edited a bunch of articles which fail WP:Notability, and made them look interlinked and "sourced," when in fact this is one giant circular, interlinked advertisment for a non-notable publication. The original nomination for speedy under CSD:G11 (a.k.a. WP:SPAM) should have been honored, but an admin was fooled by the interlinked nature of these articles. I hope that the closing admin will not be similarly misled. Fairsing 04:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not Randy Richards, thankyouverymuch. The external sources are the "proof", not the Wikiepdia interlinks. Another form of proof, as someone else pointed out, is the voluminous interest in this article (number of posts on both sides of the issude). If there was little interest in this book, then the post count would be low (and posts from people not involved in petty grudge match against the author). The high post count proves its notability ad hoc.--Cryogenesis 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because someone who reads Wikipedia on a regular basis decides in this case to, for the first time, to vote in this debate does not mean they are a sock puppet. The admin can tell by the IP address who is a sock puppet and who is not. The people who voted for deletion are likely meat puppets for Quode (I recognize some of Quode's associates on the delete side of the fence). Quode obviously has some sort of grudge against the author, the book, or both. Meat puppets are commonly used in such cases. As to Dreadmire, the entry is no more an advertisement that the campaim setting examples already given (Eberron, Greyhawk, etc.). The book meets the Wikipedia book WP:BK criteria for Keep, barely, but given the interest on this page I would have say it has wide notability. For that reason I say Keep.--BinksG 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Most if not all of Randy Richards sock puppet have an AOL e-mail address. As an example we have the reviewer Nick Lee; ChATurrentine@aol.com, and Clawedfrog from EZboard; jackstrade@aol.com. Another e-mail from some of the RPG boards is acererak@aol.com. All of the Spellbinder business e-mails are also AOL and owned by Randy. http://www.dreadmire.com/ contacts. One question is in regard to the IP of any e-mail. Randy answers this on his message board "Not if you are dialing in through AOL, as they either scramble the IP or somehow use the same IP for everyone." This is the same problem Necromancer Games has in keeping Randy and his sock puppets out. http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm17.showMessage?topicID=148.topicQuode 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am quite sure the Admin can tell whether or not a post is from an AOL IP or not, if that helps. I want the article to stay up, but not if we have to cheat. The article can stand on its own merits and notability without "sock puppets". As to the "meat puppets", have you noticed many of the "delete" voters seem to be associated with Quode and the "Greyawk Wiki Project"? Interesting. As to the stuff about Randy (the author) and Spellbinder Games' e-mails, that is neither here nor there. True or not, it is not relevant to the Wiki article.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether or not your assertions are true or false has nothing to do with the question at hand, except that it shows your continued obsession in furthering your vendetta.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. This discussion is in regards to this article being spam. When first raised we had this argument brought to the table “I would also like to note the article is not meant to be an advertisement for Dreadmire. The book was published several years ago, and I believe its "run" is over (in the gaming industry, book runs are often short-lived). If this article is perceived that it is to be used to sell books, I would think its a little late for that!”. And yet when there was an issue with this article being noteworthy we learn this. “Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination.” The same goes when people try to paint me as being one thing or another. My argument and reasons for such are clear along with my motivation, I stand up to bullies. Please do not confuse infamy with notability, endless diatribe with beneficial debate.Quode 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. The comments about worldwide distribution, ENnie qualification, and the "run" of the book being over, are all accurate. The d20 market is soft. In the 1980's/90's a typical D&D book run was 30,000 books. In 2006, a game company is lucky if it sells 800 books. 1,400 book sales would be a runaway hit. 2,000 would be a blockbuster. Ask any game company, including WotC, Spellbinder Games, and Necromancer Games, if you don't believe me. It doesn't take but a couple of months to sell 800 to 2,000 books. The "run" of the book is over, as would most any game book by this time. Perhaps you should do more industry research before spin doctoring information to fit your version of the world. The only bully here is you, as your consistent hammering has made self-evident.--Cryogenesis 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment BTW, infamy is indeed a form of notability.--Cryogenesis 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as non-notable. Comment List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire needs adding to this AfD. Percy Snoodle 09:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals, too. Percy Snoodle 09:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Noting an echo in here -- Simon Cursitor
  • Comment: If deleted, all of Abysmal ooze, Aquatic ooze, Blood pudding (Dungeons & Dragons), Jelly curd, Jelly quasit, Jelly wraith, Ooze demon and Oozoid should be deleted as well; I'm not aware of any of these having any existence outside Dreadmire. If kept, they should probably be merged. --Pak21 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I wholly agree that these should be deleted. However, it's rather bad practice to add deletion candidates to an ongoing AfD since we can't simply assume that everyone who sounded off on Dreadmire also agrees with these deletions. A separate nomination would be in order for these. Pascal.Tesson 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm happy to leave that up to the closing admin. If the only existence of these creatures is in a non-notable book, they my view would say that they are obviously non-notable, and going through an AfD for them is just going to be a waste of everybody's time. Cheers --Pak21 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE This is an advertising and vanity article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.120.55 (talk • contribs).
  • KEEP ...68.208.71.11 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)livytaby@aol.com
Comment For a long while these three votes were lying atop the page, unsigned. Of course all three are from editors with no other contributions to Wikipedia. 22:32, 20 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Dreadmire_5522.html"