Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. A fourth relist appears to be excessive. Obviously, there is no consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. Whether the content should perhaps be merged elsewhere is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Details of the rules of a role-playing game. Not an individually notable topic (WP:N), as it lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the game. All cited sources appear related to the game. A classic case of WP:FANCRUFT, better suited to fan wikis. Possibly also copyright concerns given the apparent close paraphrasing of game rulebooks. Sandstein 20:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I do believe that the "Shared Fantasy" and "Dicing with Dragons" sources give notability to the topic, but at minimum we can merge some of it into Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Can you tell us in which detail magic items are covered in these sources? From how they are cited in the article lead, I infer that they don't provide more detail than the superficial information given in the lead, which would not be the kind of substantial coverage needed for notability. Sandstein 06:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dungeons & Dragons is a well-documented role-playing game, and even some specific aspects of the game such as its magic items will have enough coverage - for instance in gaming magazines, not necessarily published by the company that markets D&D - to merit articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you provide specific references to such sources about this particlular topic? Sandstein 06:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep a broadly discussed topic. Really broadly. Things like [1] and [2] for example are very academic sources. Plenty of reviews of the D&D books provide coverage of the various items and their presentations. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider changing to Magic item (role playing), and expanding to cover the general practice of role playing games having these, and having the fairly common characteristic of such items granting specific point bonuses to specific character attributes. See Michael J. Tresca, The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games (2010), p. 151 (discussing the transition of magic items from traditional role playing games to computer gaming analogues). bd2412 T 19:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as a notable topic, but definitely cut it down to the basic non-crufty stuff. The gigantic table under "artifacts" and most of the "overview by edition" should go, and unsourced content in other sections should be cleared out. ansh 666 07:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As content that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and has no secondary sources. Presented sources in this AFD are not specifically about the article subject. Belongs in the D&D Wikia and has no reason to be in Wikipedia. It might be a notable topic if rewritten to encompass all RPG items, but that would be a matter that does not preclude the deletion of this total fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major facet of a major game. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On seeing the !votes I'd hoped to close this discussion (and perhaps a better NAC or admin still might) , but there seems a lack of actually justified arguments by the Keep crew and an absence of full WP:BEFORE checks throughout. Items are so bound up that they're slightly difficult to filter out from the general coverage of D&D. D&D for dummies, Magic Items gives detailed coverage in a fairly reliable form (strict editorial control and source checking on the books). Next to consider are probably the reliable game sites - those generally accepted to provide reviews (usually the way of establishing WP:NGAME) should also be deemed reliable/independent for any articles on the topic. E.g. Kotaku The 20 Most WTF Magical Items In Dungeons & Dragons. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should be a section of the Dungeons & Dragons gameplay article. Aeonx (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Dungeons and Dragons gameplay. Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this case the Merge !votes look pretty silly to me. The article offers many reliable sources independent of the game publishers, which establishes Notability, and the GAMEGUIDE section of WP:NOT does not apply in such cases, as Zxcvbnm should know by now. In fact, the nominator suggested that the sources for notability needed to be independent of the game rather than independent of the game publisher, which shows complete ignorance of WP policy in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dungeons and Dragons gameplay. The article as written isn't encyclopedic; it's a game manual. Very little independent sourcing. These problems were all noted during the first AfD in 2008, but apparently little was done to address it. AfD isn't cleanup, but ten years suggest the problems aren't fixable. Mackensen (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm a bit disappointed by the arguments presented here, with a couple of exceptions; few of the opinions are backed up by substantive evidence or reasoning. For this to reach a meaningful conclusion, there needs to be more detailed analysis of the source material, and on the feasibility of a standalone article versus a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by BOZ and Hobit; I concur that these establish notability and cover necessary sourcing outside primary sources. That said, I also concur that the article as it currently stands includes far too much "in-universe" material. The ~~table is unnecessary (although might make an appropriate separate list article similar to the various creature lists) and the~~ examples/gameplay-related sections are too large. While AFD is not cleanup, this article definitely needs cleaning up.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequent to a review of the article history and talk page, I withdraw my remark about the table, as it and various elements of it were previously moved to the current article as the result of previous XfDs. Deleting the table from the current location would remove material previously deemed notable enough to keep. My keep !vote on the article stands.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, depending on majority consensus - I have no opinion, but given how much information there is, if this passes WP:V then it should probably be merged with the official Dungeons & Dragons article if the majority agrees. I do, however, argue that this info isn't important to many people, so a deletion wouldn't be a bad idea either. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons - changed prev. vote After RoySmith's deletion of most of the article, I say strong redirect, not a merge. The article is useless now. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets sourcing requirements, and is too long to be merged well into the targets suggested. Should be summarised in those articles at the appropriate level instead. Useful to readers interested in this topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Del/Mer There are 24 sources, not a single one of which are WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic, therefore, this could not reasonably remain as a standalone article while preserving compliance with the GNG. My personal BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, and newspapers.com fails to find any further coverage. WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:FANCRUFT applies. Merge as a concise couple sentences to Dungeons & Dragons is probably okay, though first preference is for delete. Chetsford (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note: I'm currently working on cleaning up sources. Please hold off on closing this.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to do this justice. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject lacking independent notability. It could be deleted altogether but a preferable course would be to Merge the text into Dungeons and Dragons gameplay. -The Gnome (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've deleted everything from the article which was totally unsourced. Sadly, that means I hacked away about 2/3 of the text. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: why has this discussion been relisted 3 times? Debate has now been open for 25 days. Per WP:RELIST, debates should in general only be relisted twice, unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise. I see none here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan's Forge - Generally it's viewed as reasonable to do so if there are comments still coming in as the end of the 2nd relist occurs, and a clearly firm consensus hasn't been established. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2018 (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.