Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Light

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} 08:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Light[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]
Comment As far as I know, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We should not "delete" stubs for being very obscure, but keep it there in case someone can help expanding it. There is no problem in having stubs around. -- ReyBrujo 03:43, 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 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. 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 07:45, 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. My point is being missed. This is not a question of notability. It's a question of why we are proliferation mediocre material that serves no reasonable purpose. Dooms Day349 20:44, 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 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or MERGE - merge into Dragonlance until more sources found, or otherwise keep it. Kopf1988 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:11, 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 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last I checked, we're not running out of disk space any time soon, and I see the beginnings something useful here. This nomination for deletion is so wrong in so many ways, I'm not even sure where to begin. RFerreira 02:33, 20 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.