Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Ice

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} 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Ice[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 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Repeating myself, 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 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Also repeating myself. 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. SkipSmith 07:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I just saw Ravenloft (D&D module) on the WP:GAC page, so there are people that are working on improving DnD module articles. I guess merging them into a Tales of Winter Night article wouldn't be so bad, but I would object to a List of Dragonlance modules merger. In reality, I guess there's really not much to say about something that's only 32 pages long. (I only know this because I own DL2: Dragons of Flame, which this AFD made me go dig up). Repeat this vote for the other AFDs (I'm lazy).--SeizureDog 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Delete as per my comments on the Dragons of Faith AfD. Ravenswing 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As stated in the other AFDs, my point is not about notability. It's about the fact that I cannot understand why we are proliferating useless material. One day, I will recreate this. When I have the material. Trust me, no one on Wikipedia can fix this. Why are we leaving a stub whose best chance at improvement is years away? Dooms Day349 20:45, 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]
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]
Keep - per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:SeizureDog. It looks like it will get improved over time. Kopf1988 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really? Up until this AfD, it hadn't been touched in nine months. Upon what do you base that belief? Ravenswing 13:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit on wikipedia articles, so the speed at which it is being improved is irrelevant. - Peregrine Fisher 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The point is that a claim was made that the article will improve over time. I'm questioning the basis for that claim, being myself unsure how one can tell by a casual glance at an article that it is destined to be improved. My casual glance says that except for the couple paragraphs thrown in specifically in response to this AfD, no one's touched it and there is nothing to suggest that anyone else is likely to do so. Ravenswing 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know why they think it will eventually be improved, but I think it's because that's what happens with wikipedia articles. As far as nine months going by, that doesn't seem like a long time in the scope of what wikipedia is trying to do. There are tons of D&D stubs, and not that many D&D editors. It's going to take years to finish them all, I would imagine. Deleting this will extend that time. - Peregrine Fisher 18:33, 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 22:29, 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.