Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krynn's Time of 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. Singu larity 01:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krynn's Time of Dragons[edit]

This article seems like an advertisement and the subject seems non-notable. Marlith ^T/C 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no resources directly tied to the game available through searching, and one of many games of it's type; nothing to indicate anything special about this game above the rest. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a fan-made game mod that might be fun to play, but which doesn't meet our required notability standards. Lankiveil (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. There are actually quite a number of notable NWN mods out there, because of the generally large amount of reliable sources that write about these things. (NWvault, BioWare official website Wednesday articles) This one is not notable. User:Krator (t c) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep Why do you find it un-notable? We've spent 4 years creating it. No it is NOT an advertisement, it is factual evidence that we have buildt it and the history of how we created it together. --24.247.1.101 (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) As far as resources tied directly to the game, what do you mean?[reply]

Have you guys been featured by any BioWeds, or perhaps on NWvault articles? Some mods and particularly PWs have been featured by paper newspapers. If yours has not, that means it's sadly, not notable. User:Krator (t c) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*no·ta·ble as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable. So your saying that this is not a remarkable acomplishment by the team that has buildt it? Gary Thomas a few months ago was on GameShout Radio doing an interview. GameShout mentioned that the game platfrom was outdated by the new NWN2. Conversion of the module to the new NWN2 format would take another 4 years so the team is staying with NWN1; furthermore NWN1 is still providing support for the community in regards to these types of PW's. The article for "persistent worlds" had no referance, but now it does with the KTOD article to show what one is. The article also shows the remarkable flexability of the Aroura Engine & Toolset.--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as defined by Wikipedia's notability guideline. What's being asked for is reliable secondary sources. Someone another (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of KTOD Tim the builder who retired form the project used it on his application to Bioware and is now currently working with them. Is this documented anywhere? not that i know of. Is it the truth? Yes. If Nothing else, why not merge it with another article under the GFDL if you'll not allow it to stand alone as an "example of", "Relating to", or "for better understanding" it could be merged with any of the following articles: Persistent worlds as an example, Aroura Engine as an example of a created work, Aroura toolkit as an example of a created work, Neverwinter Nights as a fact that this game enigne is still runing strong even after the new release of NWN2, Virtual communities as an example of. ectcetera. --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That someone got a job (supposedly) by virtue of some past project does not make that past project notable. I do not see any parent article that would be improved by merging this article's content into it. GameShout notability sounds promising, however. Coverage of that kind would make your mod notable. By the way, there are several other NWN mods that are in fact notable - it is hard, though. User:Krator (t c) 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, it would need to be sourced. Without secondary sources there's no more reason for Time of Dragons to be in those articles than any other module. Nothing could be said about it apart from that it exists, and we're not in the business of dropping external links to mods without having an article to back it up and give readers some information. Doing so would just open the door for other mod builders to turn up and say "Hey hey hey, why isn't our mod there, why are they getting all the traffic? That's totally biased" etc. etc. Do you know of any significant coverage of Time of Dragons? I'll have a look later (got to go shortly), but it would really help if you know of any. Someone another (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look but came up empty handed. Someone another (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references provided show independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate So whats with all the Silent Hill stuff? Is that a personal game interest of yours or Wiki's, or just something your in charge of editting? or what? it seems you have a billion articles about this game. Congradulations on the family edition also! (didn't know Wiki provided each individual worker there own private "blog" type work page, you fellas should make these pages invisable to the general public, if they are (indeed) actual workers for Wiki) see bottom of page--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. Wikipedia is edited solely by volunteers, not "employees"; each user gets their own User page (not a blog, as laid out by WP:USER), yours is at User:Pluto2spacebeam (which is a red link, seeing as it's blank); and the existence of other articles is irrelevant to the existence of this one. sh ¤y 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

db-spam per above. Miranda 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fan-build; there appear to be no relevant reliable sources regarding this project, and thus it's not verifiable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would still ask for it to be merged with another article if possable, I'll do it if I have to.
Your right, I guess I cannot defend my submission this way due to policies...

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.

However it says "theres nothing stoping anyone from creating any article" indeed, as ironic as it is there is "Something" stoping the articles from staying posted. As we have seen here.--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPAM, WP:N, WP:V, and we definitely have some WP:COI action going as well. Pluto2spacebeam appears to be a SBA for whom this article, and its defense, is almost his sole Wikipedia activity. I appreciate his fervor in wishing to publicize his creation, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. RGTraynor 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate First off, The article is not masquerading as anything as you try to say falls under WP-SPAM, Infact it is an article I have tried to write in real terms about real people, while trying to provide all the ligitimit facts that I can about the subject matter to try to better this site.

I am currently looking for factual evidence to show you folks its notablity, in regards to WP-N. I have also given examples of how the article might be "merged" with another article to give a broader and/or more rounded aspect to the article it would / could be added unto via the GDFL. As far as the WP-V goes....Now your calling me a Vandal of some sort to your site, How Rude. In regards to the WP: COI, Think what you want to, everyone is entitled to there own opinion for this is a talk / debate section on why or why not the article should be kept, deleted or merged to form a more factual article of another. Then whatever this SBA abriviation stands for who knows... I personaly don't. Q. Is It my sole activity here? A. Of course it is. Q. Why? A. Common sense will tell you that this is my first contribution to the site, thus making it my primary focus to try to make it proper for you and your site. Q. Do I plan to provide more or edit others articles to make things better for the Wiki? A. I may have; although, seeing this bombardment of "this is wrong", or "that is wrong", "this breaks that", "I think your this", or "There are a million of these", or "if we do this then others might want to add theirs" kind of statements here, it is really dissapointing to me on the part of you guys. I expected more, Guess I was wrong again. Honestly I think there is only one person above that even mentioned that they might try to help in some way and provided me with any sort of real description of what I "Should Add" to make it fit your standards. To him/her I give thanks for atlest trying. Others of you might also want to put yourselves in check in regards to your own bias-ness and / or nutrality on matters concerning this site or you might cause more damage to the site yourselves then working with someone to make a posted article proper. Sincerly, --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err ... for one thing, WP:V does not stand for "vandalism," of which no one has accused you, nor do I see any evidence that is the case. It is verifiability. Every article on Wikipedia is required to be sourced by two or more "reliable sources," which are third-party, neutral, published sources specifically about the subject; game magazines, for instance. For another thing, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or forum, and you can understand we have specific policies and procedures which must be followed; I strongly recommend clicking on some of those links so that you can read those over. RGTraynor 08:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability and meet requirements of verifiability. Oppose any merge on the grounds that the material lacks verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 14 December 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.