Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THAC0
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 delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. - Philippe | Talk 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] THAC0
Non-notable neologism, with no relevance outside the game it is used in. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- We've been here before. Terms aren't the same as neologisms, so WP:NEO doesn't apply. WP:N does, nonetheless. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete while I think there was an article published solely about THAC0 in one of the early Dragons, even that wouldn't constitute independent coverage. Possibly merge to a D&D combat system article, if sufficient independent coverage could be found to support that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would also support a redirect to Armor Class if that article's notability is established. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should - in theory, mind you - be a lot easier to find sources for something like Armor class, since like Hit points that is a term that is used far and wide beyond D&D, in other RPGs, computer games, video games, etc. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would also support a redirect to Armor Class if that article's notability is established. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. There's a small chance that a proper article could be written on how THAC0 has become a symbol, in the roleplaying community, of a Bad Mechanic that was better off discarded. However, it would require a lot of research and finger-crossing that independent coverage could be found. This article as it stands is just a recitation of game mechanics, making it a game guide. --Ig8887 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I can also support a Trim and Merge into another article, particularly one that is itself notable. Armor class is one possibility, because AC exists in several different game systems (whereas THAC0 is in D&D 2E and nothing else), but some sort of D&D mechanics article would be good.--Ig8887 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep/merge It is a distinctive search term and hits can be found in Google News and Google Scholar, let alone the hobby press which is not online. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment google hits don't generally establish notability. If any of those hits constitute substantial, independent secondary coverage then please link to them from the article; otherwise, it fails to meet the notability requirements. Regarding the hobby press: can you give any examples of non-TSR/WotC publications dedicating substantial coverage to THAC0? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment in fact, I've followed those google links, and none of the hits are articles about THAC0; rather they are trivial mentions, which don't establish notability at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a hostage-taking exercise to drive editing activity. The point of my searches, which were made quickly, was to demonstrate the penetration of this term. They are indicative rather than definitive. More substantial coverage will be in specialist magazines and works covering the field which are typically not online or in Google. I remain unpersuaded that there is any need to delete this article. It can safely be left for further editing work to be done over the fullness of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Except that you haven't really proven anything, because you haven't found even one article that is about THAC0 and its notability instead of simply using THAC0 in its place as a rule terminology. If reliable sources discussing THAC0's significance can be found, then yes, the article should be kept and cleaned up. "Penetration of the term" is a meaningless distinction if nobody ever actually writes about the term itself. Your assertion that "More substantial coverage will be in specialist magazines and works covering the field which are typically not online or in Google," is simply unsupported at best, wishful thinking at worst. Hell, I read Dragon Magazine for the entire Second Edition period, and I can't remember a single article regarding the impact or significance of the term "THAC0". If there are any such reliable third-party sources, at least two must be produced in order for this subject to be established as notable. The vague hope that they might exist, somewhere, is not sufficient. --Ig8887 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. - I don't see a compelling reason why any publication outside of TSR/WotC would give coverage to THAC0. Mention it, yes, but not devote coverage to it. And if that coverage doesn't exist, then the article isn't notable, and that isn't a problem that we can leave for editors to fix later, because they never will. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The term is notoriously confusing and so it seems quite likely that there was some deep coverage of it in journals back in the day. I might look for this just to prove you wrong but the effort involved is disproportionate for deciding this matter and it is simply not needed. My searching indicates that there's sufficiently currency for the term that someone might want to search for it. The article then would be fine as a redirect to an article like Armor class, say, which is a broader topic. What I utterly reject is your idea that exact detailed sources have to be produced right now simply because Gavin Collins has turned his baleful eye this way. Notability is just a guideline and should not be interpreted in a rigidily bureacratic way, per WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- That the notability requirements are just a guideline doesn't mean we shouldn't follow them. Equally, we shouldn't include stuff for now when the references aren't forthcoming. I believe you when you say there was some coverage, and indeed I've read a lot in Dragon trying to explain it - but unless secondary sources exist, the topic isn't a notable one, and you haven't established that they do, or even made it look likely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it DOES need to be proven right now (or rather, within the next few days). That notability needs to be proven at ANY point at which an editor feels that an article does not meet the standards of Wikipedia is the very basis of the entire Deletion Proposal process, whether initiated by Gavin Collins or anyone else. If notability cannot be proven now, then we must conclude that it cannot be proven at all, and therefore must be deleted. "I can't be bothered to look for it, but, you know, someone should," isn't a valid reason to keep an article on a topic whose notability independent of its parent topic has yet to be proven. If you want to keep it, do the research. Go ahead and prove me wrong, I'd be happy to change my vote to Keep an article that actually had proper proof of notability. I dug up articles to successfully oppose Gavin Collins' AfD on slaad, so I'm not asking you to anything that I haven't done in the past. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have already done more research here than anyone seems to and am satisfied that the results are good enough to satisfy WP:RFD#KEEP. Deleting the article rather than retaining it as a useful redirect does not seem helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you've done substantial research and failed to find secondary coverage, that's good enough evidence that none exists to justify deletion. We're not debating whether this page is useful, we're debating whether it's notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I have not done substantial research - I just spent a minute with Google. Substantial research would be poring through piles of dusty magazines, none of which seem to be on Google. This would take several hours or days. Since you yourself say, I've read a lot in Dragon trying to explain it, I expect that I'd find something. But this is not necessary to support a merge which seems to be the consensus and so I'll do something useful instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I *DO* spend a lot of time going through dusty old Dragons and White Dwarfs and Dungeoneers and a score of other mags I have here. Still, in the interests of fairness if you find them (or even a couple)I will dig too. But I think this is better served as a topic within AC. Web Warlock (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I have not done substantial research - I just spent a minute with Google. Substantial research would be poring through piles of dusty magazines, none of which seem to be on Google. This would take several hours or days. Since you yourself say, I've read a lot in Dragon trying to explain it, I expect that I'd find something. But this is not necessary to support a merge which seems to be the consensus and so I'll do something useful instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you've done substantial research and failed to find secondary coverage, that's good enough evidence that none exists to justify deletion. We're not debating whether this page is useful, we're debating whether it's notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have already done more research here than anyone seems to and am satisfied that the results are good enough to satisfy WP:RFD#KEEP. Deleting the article rather than retaining it as a useful redirect does not seem helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The term is notoriously confusing and so it seems quite likely that there was some deep coverage of it in journals back in the day. I might look for this just to prove you wrong but the effort involved is disproportionate for deciding this matter and it is simply not needed. My searching indicates that there's sufficiently currency for the term that someone might want to search for it. The article then would be fine as a redirect to an article like Armor class, say, which is a broader topic. What I utterly reject is your idea that exact detailed sources have to be produced right now simply because Gavin Collins has turned his baleful eye this way. Notability is just a guideline and should not be interpreted in a rigidily bureacratic way, per WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. - I don't see a compelling reason why any publication outside of TSR/WotC would give coverage to THAC0. Mention it, yes, but not devote coverage to it. And if that coverage doesn't exist, then the article isn't notable, and that isn't a problem that we can leave for editors to fix later, because they never will. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Except that you haven't really proven anything, because you haven't found even one article that is about THAC0 and its notability instead of simply using THAC0 in its place as a rule terminology. If reliable sources discussing THAC0's significance can be found, then yes, the article should be kept and cleaned up. "Penetration of the term" is a meaningless distinction if nobody ever actually writes about the term itself. Your assertion that "More substantial coverage will be in specialist magazines and works covering the field which are typically not online or in Google," is simply unsupported at best, wishful thinking at worst. Hell, I read Dragon Magazine for the entire Second Edition period, and I can't remember a single article regarding the impact or significance of the term "THAC0". If there are any such reliable third-party sources, at least two must be produced in order for this subject to be established as notable. The vague hope that they might exist, somewhere, is not sufficient. --Ig8887 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a hostage-taking exercise to drive editing activity. The point of my searches, which were made quickly, was to demonstrate the penetration of this term. They are indicative rather than definitive. More substantial coverage will be in specialist magazines and works covering the field which are typically not online or in Google. I remain unpersuaded that there is any need to delete this article. It can safely be left for further editing work to be done over the fullness of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment in fact, I've followed those google links, and none of the hits are articles about THAC0; rather they are trivial mentions, which don't establish notability at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment google hits don't generally establish notability. If any of those hits constitute substantial, independent secondary coverage then please link to them from the article; otherwise, it fails to meet the notability requirements. Regarding the hobby press: can you give any examples of non-TSR/WotC publications dedicating substantial coverage to THAC0? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Colonel Warden. And I'm not convinced that this is non-notable, and being a neologism isn't relevant to whether or not it should be deleted. Rray (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See my response to Colonel Warden for why that's not a reason. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect into
Editions of Dungeons & Dragons#Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition, I guessArmor class. My first thought was "THAC0? I didn't even know we had an article on THAC0." :) It's a defunct game mechanic - should get a mention and a little discussion in an article, but not so sure it needs its own. BOZ (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC) - Merge with armor class. The concept itself is in fact notable, being a term of art in Dungeons and Dragons prior to the third edition and d20. As such, the term was widely used, not only in publications from TSR/Wizards/Hasbro, but also in the documentation of derivative works like the Gold Box series from SSI.
In any case, this page should not be deleted while the fictional character deletion injunction remains in effect; looking at the arbitration page, it seems that the dispute there also covers roleplaying game topics as well as TV series topics. It seems to fall within the purview of that arbitration case as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment THAC0 isn't a fictional character. Further, game manuals wouldn't have devoted significant coverage to a single game mechanic like THAC0 - they may have given a sentence or two at most. Unless there's significant, non-trivial independent secondary coverage, the topic still fails WP:N. The same is likely true of Armour Class. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Trim, Merge and Redirect into armor class. 15 years ago this had notability, today it's notability only comes in from the fact that I think it was mentioned on Jeopardy or the Colbert Report. Web Warlock (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or Delete. Explaining a single term makes the article suitable for a dictionary - WP:DICT. Perhaps a merge as suggested earlier is a good route to take. Bardcom (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to an article about D&D game mechanics, which overall IS a significant topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete or merge As it stands, this is game-guide material. DGG (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Armor class per BOZ, as long as Gavin pledges not to nominate that article for deletion as well. Can't recall ever hearing or reading the term outside of game discussion or game materials. Addition of this material may improve the Armor class pagespace. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 25 February 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.
