Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons)

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. Yanksox 03:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

WP:NOT Instruction manuals shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the d20 System Reference Document 3.5 says much of it can be reprinted or whatever in its license, doesn't mean Wikipedia should have the entire SRD in detail. I have only marked this one for deletion, but as I learn how and find more I will also marked them. Every last detail of the game is not required on Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT as cited by Shadzar. As much of an old school gamer as I am, I don't think it is necessary or desireable to reprint this level of gameplay detail in Wikipedia even if it can be reprinted per the license. I don't know if the originator is still active here anymore, but maybe someone should let him/her know about the D&D Wikia because I think they would welcome this sort of contribution there since most of the SRD articles are redlinked.--Isotope23 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that there is a license to print it, and I think that while this level of detail might not be desired, this is not a reason to delete the article. Editing it down is sufficient. (Unless, of course, the license indicates that the text, while can be reprinted, cannot be altered; in that case I'd change my opinion to delete.) --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to be clear, I'm not talking about the level of detail that the article goes into per Arcane Magic in the D&D world, I mean actually having an article about the concept of Arcane Magic is in and of itself too much detail in the context of D&D in my opinion, same as it would be to have an article about Divine Magic, Bard songs, etc. If consensus is that this doesn't violate WP:NOT then I would say the article should stand as it is. Better to have a comprehensive article if you are going to cover a topic.--Isotope23 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given RJHall's pointing out that OGL and GFDL are incompatible, changing to delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The SRD license is specific in stating that publications of the material must also adopt the same license. (See section 10 of the open gaming license.) This is inapplicable to wikipedia, so SRD-like content is not appropriate here. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Delete D&D includes hundreds of books and supplements and probably has been the topic of that many secondary sources in the 30 or so years of its existence. Despite the narrow focus, a well-sourced, project-appropriate article could be written on this topic. This, however, isn't it. This article is fundamentally unsourced and has critical copyvio problems due to the incompatibility of OGL with GFDL. I'm willing to do the legwork on this article, but if what is here gets deleted before I'm done, then so be it ... page history can always be restored by admin if necessary for GFDL compliance. Serpent's Choice 04:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.