Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSRIC-Compatible Supplements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OSRIC-Compatible Supplements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list compilation is not referenced to non-published sources. Creation of a ' sales catalog' (the products are not for sale, but that is the effect of having this article) from primary sources makes this an original research issue.
The authors are using Wikipedia as a primary source of documentation for their game creating specialized catalog lists. Miami33139 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to OSRIC no need for multiple article on this topic. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I authored most of the content on this page. To date, I am not associated with any of the publishers, nor have I written any of the items listed. Also note the various publishers are unafilliated. The article is meant as a useful index for interested readers to find all OSRIC-compatible supplements. I believe Wikipedia is the best place for such information because the list is independent of publisher, author, and distributor bias. So, it is the ideal place for the reader to find all published OSRIC-Compatible supplements, regardless of publisher, author, or distributor bias. I know there are a number of people interested in RPGs that use this article as a reference. I believe the article should be kept for those who want a comprehensive list of OSRIC supplements. -Terrex2112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrex2112 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory service -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Same reason as the modules page, a useful list analogous to various computer game lists, and perhaps most pertinently the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules page. M.J.Stanham (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same argument as modules page, other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the argument for keeping it, just examples of analogous material of similar usefulness. If those other pages ought also to be considered for deletion, then they should be. M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other lists you've mentioned have twice as many source, are one lengthier topics and come from parent articles that meet the same standards. Your assertion of 'other lists being considered for deletion' is very familiar. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the requirement is more sources and lengthier topics, I am sure something can be done about that. I am not asserting anything, just saying that if the contention is that similar lists should be considered for deletion, then they should, and according to whatever criteria is suitable. M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is valid second and third party sources to establish notability, cause as the list stands it doesn't establish this and reads like a catalog. Yes, lists that have these same failing will be pointed out and either improved or deleted in some fashion, that's a given. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, which is what I was saying above. I think you can understand the confusion when a page is indicated to be marked for deletion because it is a list, when in fact its function as a list is not the primary reason for its deletion, but rather that the criteria is towards notability established through the existence of secondary and third party sources, presumably things like discussion in Dragon magazine or Knights of the Dinner Table, which are fairly easily established.M.J.Stanham (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no confusion. No where did anyone say 'delete this because it's a list'. Nom states that it's a list that lacks notability. The fact that it's a list is secondary to the notability issues, coupled with the fact that the list reads like an advert for OSRIC products. If you believe that notability can be established "fairly easily", might I suggest you focus your energies on that? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was no confusion, we would not be having this conversation. I am indeed devoting what energies I can spare to this process, and would appreciate any help from people who know better what they are doing with regards to the criteria for Wikipedia. I am indeed "fairly certain" that that the criteria can be met, but obviously that certainty is itself limited by my understanding of what is and is not permissible.M.J.Stanham (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are having this discussion because you are trying to defend a list that is up for deletion due to notability issues, not because it's a list, so I don't see this confusion you keep talking about. Additionally, this isn't getting us anywhere. I see that you've created the article you proposed and that an admin from OSRIC wiki has rejected the information. Vote amended to reflect that. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was no confusion, we would not be having this conversation. I am indeed devoting what energies I can spare to this process, and would appreciate any help from people who know better what they are doing with regards to the criteria for Wikipedia. I am indeed "fairly certain" that that the criteria can be met, but obviously that certainty is itself limited by my understanding of what is and is not permissible.M.J.Stanham (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no confusion. No where did anyone say 'delete this because it's a list'. Nom states that it's a list that lacks notability. The fact that it's a list is secondary to the notability issues, coupled with the fact that the list reads like an advert for OSRIC products. If you believe that notability can be established "fairly easily", might I suggest you focus your energies on that? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, which is what I was saying above. I think you can understand the confusion when a page is indicated to be marked for deletion because it is a list, when in fact its function as a list is not the primary reason for its deletion, but rather that the criteria is towards notability established through the existence of secondary and third party sources, presumably things like discussion in Dragon magazine or Knights of the Dinner Table, which are fairly easily established.M.J.Stanham (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is valid second and third party sources to establish notability, cause as the list stands it doesn't establish this and reads like a catalog. Yes, lists that have these same failing will be pointed out and either improved or deleted in some fashion, that's a given. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the requirement is more sources and lengthier topics, I am sure something can be done about that. I am not asserting anything, just saying that if the contention is that similar lists should be considered for deletion, then they should, and according to whatever criteria is suitable. M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other lists you've mentioned have twice as many source, are one lengthier topics and come from parent articles that meet the same standards. Your assertion of 'other lists being considered for deletion' is very familiar. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the argument for keeping it, just examples of analogous material of similar usefulness. If those other pages ought also to be considered for deletion, then they should be. M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same argument as modules page, other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to OSRIC WikiMerge & Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Transwiki option seems like an appropriate venue as stated above,( I also will not oppose a merge to OSRIC, so long as it avoids turning the page into a directory) agreed with nomination statement. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to OSRIC Wiki per nom arguments. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki per Jelly Soup and Ottawa4ever. SnottyWong babble 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like to bring this AfD to everyones attention, as it is on a similar subject. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't transwiki:- the OSRIC wiki (of which I'm the administrator) is not a subject-specific encyclopaedia and it doesn't want this content. Merge to Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums and redirect there, retaining the history under the redirect to comply with our licencing rules.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 1 August 2010 (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.