Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons: Difference between revisions

List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons

List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This list has been tagged for WP:N since December 2007, I am not really sure if the community will think notability tag should come off or if the article should be deleted. As the topic of notablity has not been addressed I assume that it fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any real-world info relating to this topic belongs in Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons, which already contains a fair bit of such information. This article contains very little real-world stuff to add. Furthermore, all these red links do nothing but encourage creation of further articles which will fail WP:N. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons or Dungeons_&_Dragons items not notable in and of themselves. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the items listed here are not notable of themselves. I think their collective notability is addressed in Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - items are collectively notable, if not individually. Failing that, merge into Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lists like this are an excellent compromise between the zealots who hate seeing articles on non-real-world subjects and the fans who want to create hundreds of articles on every minute detail. Honestly, cataloging fandom is Wikipedia's strength, and it'd be a shame to see all this work go to waste. -- Poisonink (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I wouldn't be sorry to see the red links go, however. -- Poisonink (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree on the redlinks, and for all the reasons stated above. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion and certainly no evidence of real-world notability; precedent is clear that such articles are unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as consistent with what Wikipedia is as well as per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Passes Wikipedia:Lists as well by being discriminate and organized. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the above vote has been canvassed: [1]. dorftrottel (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AfDs should not be used to force notability checks, that is what the tags are for. The community has not ignored this article, they simple have been working on all the other articles as well. Would support a merge *if* it does not lead to page bloat. Web Warlock (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that tags can be used as the ultimate tool to enforce notability, and I think this article is a case in point. The notability tag sat there for months with nobody doing anything about it. The time has to come when the tag must turn into action, and in the absence of any notability assertions, the applicable action is deletion. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per BOZ, WebWarlock, et al.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this list is a result of previous merges. Collectively I believe they are notable. They are a fairly prominent plot item of a prominent game. Agree with above and apologise for not prioritising searching for sources, but have been busy with other things. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Casliber, others. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Poisonink, BOZ, WebWarlock, et al. I'm of the opinion that the list has collective notability. The list is there as a compromise already rather than having individual articles on each list item, the idea of which would have a small but vocal minority of deletion-minded editors going nuts. This sort of article allows information to remain useful and available without proliferating into a multitude of articles which probably on their own (outside of some major ones that have cross-polinated into popular culture in other forms) wouldn't meet the strictest notability guidelines.Shemeska (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Artifacts are commonly major plot elements. The list could even be expanded to include a brief description of each item. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The D&D monster lists could give some inspiration on how to work that. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this was the compromise intermediate way of doing it. The nom. should realise that if a tag remains on a article, that does not prove that the difficulty is real, let alone insuperable. A tag means it should have further attention, not that it will be suitable for deletion if it doesn't get any or if the tag remains. A tag of this sort is not like a Prod. DGG (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - That this article can be AfD'd shows a problem with our guidelines, not a problem with this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Was too lazy for a thorough search for sources, but am confident there is more than enough even for an article, and certainly for a list in here and here. dorftrottel (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]