Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isle of Dread

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. John254 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Dread

Isle of Dread (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This fictional island is long on plot summary, but is short on independent sources required to establish notability.--Gavin Collins 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is mentioned in the article, just needs sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Once again the nominator does himself no favors by apparently failing to read the entire article before making a nomination, as notability is asserted in the article. References are provided, yet I do agree that they should be used to properly source the article. However, there are appropriate tags that can be used to indicate this, and AfD should not be used as a "bludgeoning tool" in this manner to encourage clean-up of an article. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball keep/nom remedied*Neutral There's no sourced case for note in the article, and the sources aren't readily available, but there are three borderline WP:RS print sources listed published by a company that, at the very least, isn't said to be owned or partially owned by the publisher of D&D in its wiki article. However, all are from the same publication, and, again, they're somewhat borderline - Are the magazines licensed by TSR/Wizards/whatever really WP:RS? On that same note, is Nintendo Power? If the latter is generally accepted, then these should be, although that doesn't negate that Multiple independent sources should be found, not just multiple citations from different issues of the same source. That said, common sense would indicate that 18 minutes is an inadequate time for a cleanup to be carried out. ;) MrZaius^talk 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) PS: On the case for note - I don't believe that its influence on later works from the same publisher really cut the mustard, although the Dungeon awards does, if a second WP:RS can be found for another point in the article. Is there anything more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that the WoW place-name is based on this, or that it had any other impact on anything outside of future TRS publications?

Comment - The amount of time that cleanup takes is irrelevant as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Rray 15:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more a matter of courtesy than not. Not a policy thing - just stating that I generally prefer to only AfD an article after they've been flagged for cleanup for some time (weeks or months) when they might otherwise be salvageable. This one likely would be. MrZaius^talk 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Downgraded to Weak delete when the only line that made any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate impact outside of D&D was removed in good faith edit. 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Craw-daddy above. Rray 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Satisfactory notability. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable, since it's an important location within a fictional universe. Just like Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, it's an important setting in which the adventures take place. The sources available further guarantee notability.--Alasdair 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's really not all that good an example. It falls prey to the same problem, having only one sourced point that demonstrates that it has importance outside of the Simpsons, and contains less (while stronger) citations. MrZaius^talk 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just using common sense with that. A fictional organization or location rarely has influence to the outside world, but if it's part of a notable fictional universe, chances are people are going to hear about it.--Alasdair 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable gamecruft. Bacchiad 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the pack-in module for the Expert set, it was one of the first modules many D&D players were exposed to. Its place on the greatest adventures list and the fact that it's still being used as an inspiration for new material today further indicate its importance in the world of D&D. More sourcing would be good, of course, but I think it's definitely notable. Pinball22 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Craw-daddy & Pinball. As this module came with the Expert box, it has likely received more play than any other D&D module, save for B2.--Robbstrd 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps the article is flawed, but deletion is a ridiculous idea. Improve it, or wait for someone else to do so. But deletion? That makes no sense at all. Perhaps the article should make it more clear that its topic is Dungeons & Dragons Gaming Module X1: The Isle of Dread, rather than the Isle of Dread per se.KevinOKeeffe 08:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's been understood from the first Keep above. Still no strong case for note built on third party sources. MrZaius^talk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Stong Keep this is another example of Gavin's self impossed Quioxtic misson to remove RPG articles from Wikipedia. The mere fact that he does not even know what this is makes him wholly unqualified to recomend a AfD here. The article may need some work, but it is referenced and it is notable. Web Warlock 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is no more an argument in an AfD than it is for the nom. The article lacks adequate references and no longer makes any attempt to demonstrate note, aside from the awards given by a magazine that is officially "authorized" by the publisher of the book/topic of the article. MrZaius^talk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, The mere fact that he does not even know what this is makes him perfectly suited to judge the article based on its merits in an encyclopedia. What notability does this have outside of D&D? What published, third party sources can you use to back it up? That particular argument is bunk. Its notability should be as plain as the nose on the author's face in any article here. MrZaius^talk 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a weak argument. People generally reference encyclopedias because they don't know anything about a particular subject. Otherwise, why have an encyclopedia at all? If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly fine for me to nominate the article on Finnegans Wake for deletion, because I know nothing about it.--19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbstrd (talk • contribs)

Arguably, Finnegans Wake (the article, that is) deserves a {{nofootnotes}} template, but that's an argument for another day.  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The book could use a {{nofootnotes}} too. ;) Pinball22 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Expertise is required to author a decent article, but the audience of an encyclopedia is the layman. If an article doesn't make a clear case for note and contain valid citations to back it up, it raises serious issues. I know nothing about the half-dozen Indian software engineers I've flagged for prod - They still don't meet WP:BIO, just like this article only makes a borderline case for note, based on the awards that were given by a company just one step away from the publisher. That said, changing back to neutral pending the introduction of the sources promised below. MrZaius^talk 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fine. Then remove the AFD to give people the chance to get the articles referenced. I have a full time job, teach at night and still have a wife and kids. I also happen to have stacks of references that I could easily add if I had the time. Web Warlock 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the nom would be withdrawn if they were added. This isn't eligible for a close, barring snowballing, until October 6th. On a side note, everybody works. MrZaius^talk 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not have the time till after the 8th to da anything and Gavin has wasted enough of my time today already. Web Warlock 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Abandon and relist the nomination is for an article about a fictional island - but I see an article about a game module. Percy Snoodle 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on lack of available sources [1] and the news and books searches on Google return remarkably little, and nothing that is usable/that meets WP:RS/is on topic. Does anyone have print sources that they can bring to bear? MrZaius^talk 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have older game magazines that are not/were not owned by the same company producing the game. I even think I have a copy of Christianity Today that mentions this module specifically. Web Warlock 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there are now 12 sources for this article. I could get more, but my Dragon Magazine index is not behaving nicely. How many more does it need? Web Warlock 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

None. Dungeon and RPGNet were both iffy sources, the one being compromised by their ties to the publisher of the book in question, and the other being a reasonably well established blog - either would have done given one strong source. Space Gamer appears to be independent - more than enough, when taken in tandem with those two. Changed to keep. MrZaius^talk 16:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it concerns an element of a major game series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. I don't believe the nom read the article based on the description of his AfD. I also believe people citing "fancruft" haven't read it either. Turlo Lomon 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On the cruft point, possibly, but only one other editor used the term. On the other, he may not have, but the key point about verifiable sources was accurate until recently. The distinction between location and book is irrelevant. MrZaius^talk 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to verifiability, perhaps, but the nature of the subject of the article is still fundamental. An article about, say, the planets of Firefly is a very different case than an article about a movie set on them, so is one about Glorantha and one about a book set in it, or a RuneQuest supplement set in it. I can't trust someone deeply in the wrong about what an article is about to make informed decisions about it, nor to do even basic research about it - both of which are vital, as the deletion process is by necessity geared towards what articles can be. That's why we require verifiability rather than verification, et cetera. --Kizor 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is even more important with the current nominator, because Isle of Dread is emphatically not an isolated case. In the last few days he's voted for the deletion of general lists of Jedi knights because they're not useful "to people who don't play the game", nominated an article about a fictional setting as one about a fictional race (and asserted that it's about a race when asked), and made several nominations that, voters have declared, have little to no bearing on the articles they're about. One even wrote that he'd want the article deleted, but can't in good conscience support a fatally flawed nomination. --Kizor 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn as notability has been demonstrated wtih the addition of 12 secondary sources, previously there being none. --Gavin Collins 14:10, 5 October 2007 (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.