Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Faith

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 redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Faith[edit]

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. Dooms Day349 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect This is a real product of a fairly well established game line from a major company. If need be, merge into a new page List of Dragonlance game products or even the existing List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. The page itself, while minimal content, is still well constructed for a stub. FrozenPurpleCube 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting articles just removes the work and research by those that started the article. What a waste of time. I agree some articles need to grow, but just deleting them does not help. People need someplace to start, and creating stubs, ideas, and other elements let Wikipedians work off of something. When you delete you leave nothing to work with. I view it as highly disruptive to the project. I know it is harder to create than destroy, but I hope you can be a creationist. Good luck to you. 13579create 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Delete. What work? That single sentence and plugging info into a cut-and-paste template took what, about ninety seconds? If someone actually wants to create a useable article on the subject - to the degree anyone bothers, because the entire series consists of similar stubs at best - more power to them, but since this stub was created, it (and the other related stubs) hasn't been touched in nine months. If there's that little interest, it should be merged into a larger article. Ravenswing 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, you do know there's no point in redirecting and deleting, don't you? Once you delete a redirect it's gone. No more content. If your concern is with the history of this article being kept, it's really a minor concern, the disk space concerns are below minimal. And I assume you find either the proposed List of Dragonlance game products or List of Dungeons & Dragons modules acceptable for the redirect target.

You assume correctly. Ravenswing 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect. Since other modules have their own pages on the D&D page, I'm not sure why these shouldn't. Maybe they could be merged into a single page, as per FrozenPurpleCube. SkipSmith 07:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A piece of a game module. Big deal. Cruft at best. Merge as above is OK too, but it'd be better off deleted. Also, 13579create needs to read WP:NOT. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is not a reason to delete, and should be avoided as nothing more than an opinion. It would be much better to explain your problem with the subject of the article than throw around a slang term. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/redirect There's no official policy on game module articles as far as I know, but this does seem to be a notable product from a significant publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll address a lot of the comments here in one. My point is, while it is notable, yes, I agree, but there's no information and no one I know on Wikipedia has the knowledge or willingness to expand them. I'm suggesting to delete them for now, and recreate when we have more information in a new list that I'll create in a little while. Right now, though, it's completely useless, and there's no point in keeping an article such as this. A very wise, wise person once said, "The proliferation of mediocrity is never its own excuse." Take that to heart, please. Dooms Day349 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise. I realize where this is leaning. Therefore, to compromise. Take the images and put them on the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, and then redirect the articles there. Is that an acceptable resolution? Dooms Day349 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, there's no reason to delete them simply because "I'll create a better article later" as the contents of the articles, while minimal, are nonetheless valid. So, the worst that happens by leaving them up is a few kilobytes of disk space. Big deal. This discussion alone is probably using up more time and energy on people's part than could possibly be saved by deleting them. And to counter your proverb another wise person once said "Don't fix what ain't broken" . These pages aren't broken. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point. I just feel like there's something better than can be done in transition for these articles until I can improve them. I guess I'll just move them to the List of DL sourcebooks I'm gonna make..when I get more DL sourcebooks. Dooms Day349 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see inclusionism's taking over... Just because Wikipedia is not paper doesn't mean it's necessarily an encyclopedia of garbage: not every scrap of information on the planet, every book, or every game subject deserves to be here just because it exists and it's a well-written stub. There's 16 of these, let's make an article on every one, shall we? According to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, there are literally hundreds of these modules, no different from each other and none more notable than the rest. What makes this module stand out? If it's the most widely played in the entire history of the game, keep it. Was it widely played at championships or competitions? Keep it. As of now, I see nothing to show any hint of notability. The only thing we can say is that they exist. As does my cat. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, though, it has good potential, and isn't unverified... it really exists. Just that apparently none of us are fans that can add any information or sort through sources. WP is not paper, so no reason to delete it, especially considering it still could be notable. Kopf1988 04:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creator is the one with the burden of proof of proving notability, not the community. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you misinterpret my comment to crystal ball? By could I was refering to the that that it could ALREADY be notable, and just hasn't been verified yet. Kopf1988 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also not wastepaper. One of the goals in AfDs is to delete articles that are not notable. We need to see more than an airy supposition that well, maybe, a subject might be notable. If it is, document it. If you can't document it, delete it. Ravenswing 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but I haven't really seen any try too hard at documenting it, have you? Kopf1988 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, no, I haven't. That would be one reason I recommend Deletion. If so many people are passionate about saving this article, then one would think at least one or two would feel passionate enough to make it a viable, notable, sourced article. Ravenswing 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been improved since the AfD started. Not sure what viable means, since it's a pretty good article, but it has sources, the Primary source itself. As far as notable, Wikipedia:Notability is now disputed, and doesn't look like it's goig to make it. - Peregrine Fisher 05:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' For all the arguments as to notability, the fact is, this was a product of a notable gaming company, and part of an unquestionably notable series. (If you need proof that Dragonlance is notable, just ask yourself if something not notable would have over 100 books involving it. I'm sure somebody could tell you the sales figures and such, but I don't think there's a reason to try). This is, and the other modules which have been nominated, were part of the initial series that introduced Dragonlance to the world. Thus some coverage of it is appropriate, even if it were just to mention its name and a brief description in a discussion of Dragonlance products or the adventure series it was in. I'm willing to say there is a valid question in how best to cover the subject of this article, however, outright deletion, is not the best way. There are other options. FrozenPurpleCube 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Wooty, we can't say your cat exists. You can, but without independent sources on the existence of your cat, we're just taking your word for it. :) FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the point in overzealous deletionism, if you don't want to read about this topic don't come here. The only Compromise I would see as acceptable is to Merge and Redirect with other modules in the original DL series (Not a general Dragonlance modules article but specifically the intial series of 14), with a section in the article for each of the modules. This would allow each module to be re-created as it's own article when the combined article got too large, and would also mean that there is then a good summary article for the series refering to each individual article. Merging or putting images into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules is not a good idea as this article is long enough already and does not need to be expanded (That it is why it refers to individual module articles). I think there are better things to spend effort on than a merger and redirect, but if someone realy wants to spend the time and do it properly it would be acceptable, provided no information is lost from existing articles. - Waza 22:39, 18 March 2007 (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.