Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hand of Doom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Hand of Doom

Red Hand of Doom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable RPG expansion pack, with no reliable secondary sources to indicate that this "generic" supplement has any significance outside of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment You do realize the enworld link is a link to two different non-trivial reviews (scroll down). Hobit (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Not notable, no significant coverage. --Jack Merridew 13:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum — Closing admin should read the closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City for an excellent summary of the issues. --Jack Merridew 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - True, but I wouldn't go assuming that the closing admin at that AFD is a deletionist's friend either. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - There's probably a List of Dungeons & Dragons Modules this can be put into. If not, there should be. Everything deserves to be on Wikipedia, but not everything needs it's very own special article. Howa0082 (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Everything deserves to be on Wikipedia? — see WP:NOT#INFO --Jack Merridew 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sum of all human knowledge, pally. Thanks for Wikistalking me immediately after reading my comment, by the way. You're a real charmer. Howa0082 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules per Howa0082. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gavin & Jack. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment From Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Articles proposed for deletion: Red Hand of Doom: Listed to establish a precedent as to whether modules without decent references from independent sources are deletable or not. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC) .... WP:SOAPBOX I still think there is abuse of the deletion template going on rather than actually working to fix documents. Rather than trying to set a precedent for deleting articles how about fixing them or adding the tags to get people to include proper references. I get a feeling a personal agenda is associated with all the RPG related AfD's since the "help" by Gavin is counter productive. All articles are deletable. The question is should they be deleted or should these articles be fixed? shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It is apparently far, far easier to delete them than it is for anyone to bring them up to a standard that some people will find acceptable. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Gavin has recently been involved in disputes on several articles regarding the use of the notability template. (He doesn't like it when someone removes this tag, and adds multiple "cease and desist" messages to talk pages if you remove one of his tags.) This article is one of the articles where the notability tag that Gavin had added was removed, and Gavin didn't agree with its removal. It seems as if this AfD might be retaliatory, which is a poor reason for an AfD. Rray (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as a retaliatory AfD as well on his part.Shemeska (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are links to two reviews in the page itself, it's just that there aren't any footnotes to the reviews. I fail to see how this means that there are "no secondary sources" on the subject of the article however. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree with this comment. AFD shouldn't be used because the referances aren't properly formatted, only if the subject is not and never can be proved to be notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, out of spite.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator seems to not have read the article. Secondary sources are provided, including a rather large set of reviews. It isn't an expansion pack as nom claims. It is an adventure module which is a form of fiction and reviews constitute the type of secondary sources you'd expect. Finally "Red Hand of Doom" produces 63,200 ghits. While ghits aren't the end-all, be-all, they do indicate that people are interested in the topic and it may well be notable. Hobit (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable D&D module. Article includes secondary sources but needs a refimprove tag added. The article is also a stub that should be expanded. Being a "generic" product isn't grounds for deletion either. None of these are valid reasons for deletion. Articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion in order "establish a precedent" anyway, but lacking references isn't a deletion reason either. Deletion is for articles which can't possibly be sourced. Rray (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Coment Any reason why you think this game supplement is notable other than your opinion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Coverage from secondary sources indicates notability. Rray (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The secondary source are not reliable, they are trivial comments about the game (see above). --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How are they trivial? All three reviews are anything but trivial. Quite long, and involve both summary and analysis. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hobit & Rray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hobit & Rray as well. Secondly, the AfD is questionable in the first place. That said, the article can be improved, and I strongly suggest actually improving articles rather than just adding templates en masse or going for deletions.Shemeska (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of one of the most notable RPG game series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable expansion of notable game. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Alansohn. Gavin, please get a new hobby. This one is boring. Iquander (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules for now. As it is, there isn't significant content to warrant a separate article but has potential for future expansion. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable expansion of notable game. Will have had independent reviews etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. AfD seems to be spite-motivated. The article should be improved, not deleted. Iceberg3k (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional comment Gavin does not seem to care enough about the subject of the article he is nominating for deletion to be able to articulate what that subject is. That smacks of a bad-faith AfD to me. Iceberg3k (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I think a lack of knowledge of the subject matter is present, and a little more research into it would solve a lot of issues. D&D for example, does not have "expansion packs", as it is not an MMO like WoW or Everquest, nor is it a board game. Use of proper terminology such as "campaign setting", "adventure module", etc would probable add a bit of credibility to the AfD's; and learning that might also give insight to the game itself and its materials to understand the significance of some of the articles. Such as I am undecided on this article, because it falls AFTER my prefered D&D edition and am still doing research on it other than I have heard its name mentioned and of its popularity, but word-of-mouth does not fall under wikipedias sources. therefore I am of mixed feelings on whether to say keep or delete since there is but such a short time with which to rationalize these thing out here amongst researching things over the holidays... shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the nominator should be working to improve articles, not deleting them because he does not understand them. That being said, there is much that can be done to improve this article if there is time given to do it. The recent policy of using AFDs to "force improvements" needs to stop. This article should be retained to allow time to improve it. Web Warlock (talk) 16:46, 26 December 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.