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. This is all a bit of a confusing mess of new accounts, unsigned commentary and inter-personal mini-feuding. Nevertheless, the reasoned argumentation that there is leans clearly enough toward deleting. The publications by this author are really pretty minimal also, and so there is none bestowed upon this book by transference. (I would also observe that the article is massively over-detailed and entirely disproportionate to its own needs.) I do not think it met any of the recent castings of G11, however. Someone mentions that an admin can see if it was an AOL IP or not; unfortunately they cannot see the IP underlying a logged-in account. -Splash - tk 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadmire[edit]

Bumped from speedy; neutral. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Dreadmire. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 08:31Z

Also List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals and List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire —Percy Snoodle 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You first, especially the latter. And throw on WP:Reliable sources while you're indulging in your amateur legal practice. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. No need to get insulting. There are no lagalities involved here, just subjective Wikipedia Guidelines. Thats why we're having this discussion. --Cryogenesis 07:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read this: WP:Wikilawyering. Note the irony of whinging that "[t]here are no lagalities involved here" while trying utilize its techniques. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above quote is accurate. It may seem trivial, but its a game, and no one is saying its noteworthy beyond that genre. Its certainly no better than the wrestling. You have to intimately know the genre to understand why the book is notable. If the Dreadmire entry is deleted, there are going to be hundreds - maybe thousands - of other deletions of books, campaign settings, TV shows, editors, and authors that must follow. Precedent has already been set in this genre. If its gets deleted I am sure someone else will eventually add it back without realizing it was deleted. No big deal I guess, I just hate to see all my work go to waste and someone else get to enter it. If it needs to be "cleaned up" then clean it up, don't delete it. Suggestions on cleanup are welcome.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above quote is accurate I never claimed it was false, which is sort of the point: a false claim would have the virtue of being reasonable if it were true. As for "cleaning up", as the New York Times has said, if you wash garbage, you just wind up with clean garbage.All right, actually that was me being quoted by the Times in an article about AFDs. But it's verifiable! And true! And totally trivial! --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above anonymous IP is a single purpose account.
  • Comment This was discussed on the message board. ENnie nominations for books that were published in 1995 are nominated at the beginning of 1996. Since the book was published in December of 1995, and worldwide book distribution did not begin until Spring of 1996, there was no chance to nominate Dreadmire. It is my understanding from reading the website, that since it was technically published in 1995 it will never be able to be nominated for an ENnie, even if its the greatest D&D book ever published.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dreadmire was published in December 2005 and the awards cover the time from 2005 to 2006 as the awards are in the summer. Thus Dreadmire was eligible. As an example to avoid confusion we have this winner, Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition *[2] It was released before dreadmire and had won Quode 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until Spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination. Seriously, its got 220,000 words. Thats at least 6 months of reading for me, let along playing the game and getting a feel for the campaign setting.
  • A quote from the notability link you just provided, "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The External Links in the article are designed to do this, providing multiple independent predominantly reliable sources.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I said before, precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres, such as Eberron, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books".--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions on how to improve the article would be helpful. I would prefer these suggestions came from people that didn't hate the author or took sides in the legal issue surrounding the original manuscript.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my mind to delete I was not careful enough the first time around: there is no indication that the said reviews are non-trivial. Many of those are from open forums and posted by fans or, for all we know, the author himself. Some are just mentions in passing and not actual reviews with any sort of depth and it's questionnable whether these are truly independent. Moreover, the obvious sockpuppetry on this AfD is a very ominous sign and my recent arguing with Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) on the article about the author does lead me to think that he is, if not Randy Richards himself, then certainly someone with close ties to him. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggestions on which parts to re-write would be appreciated. The only reason I added all the links was because I had to show the book was Notable and Verifiable. If the article remains undeleted, then the external links could be removed. Would that make it seem less like an advertisment? Personally I don't care about any of the External links at all, including the ones to the publisher's website. I was just copying the format of the Eberron article, thinking that was "normal" for a Notable and Verifiable fancruft Wikipedia entry.--Cryogenesis 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious advertising, the article clearly doesn't satisfy WP:notability .--Cliveklg

  • Comment: Probable sock-puppet. This user has never before contributed to WP except for this posting. Fairsing 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not Randy Richards, thankyouverymuch. The external sources are the "proof", not the Wikiepdia interlinks. Another form of proof, as someone else pointed out, is the voluminous interest in this article (number of posts on both sides of the issude). If there was little interest in this book, then the post count would be low (and posts from people not involved in petty grudge match against the author). The high post count proves its notability ad hoc.--Cryogenesis 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quite sure the Admin can tell whether or not a post is from an AOL IP or not, if that helps. I want the article to stay up, but not if we have to cheat. The article can stand on its own merits and notability without "sock puppets". As to the "meat puppets", have you noticed many of the "delete" voters seem to be associated with Quode and the "Greyawk Wiki Project"? Interesting. As to the stuff about Randy (the author) and Spellbinder Games' e-mails, that is neither here nor there. True or not, it is not relevant to the Wiki article.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not your assertions are true or false has nothing to do with the question at hand, except that it shows your continued obsession in furthering your vendetta.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. The comments about worldwide distribution, ENnie qualification, and the "run" of the book being over, are all accurate. The d20 market is soft. In the 1980's/90's a typical D&D book run was 30,000 books. In 2006, a game company is lucky if it sells 800 books. 1,400 book sales would be a runaway hit. 2,000 would be a blockbuster. Ask any game company, including WotC, Spellbinder Games, and Necromancer Games, if you don't believe me. It doesn't take but a couple of months to sell 800 to 2,000 books. The "run" of the book is over, as would most any game book by this time. Perhaps you should do more industry research before spin doctoring information to fit your version of the world. The only bully here is you, as your consistent hammering has made self-evident.--Cryogenesis 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, infamy is indeed a form of notability.--Cryogenesis 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noting an echo in here -- Simon Cursitor
Comment I wholly agree that these should be deleted. However, it's rather bad practice to add deletion candidates to an ongoing AfD since we can't simply assume that everyone who sounded off on Dreadmire also agrees with these deletions. A separate nomination would be in order for these. Pascal.Tesson 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy to leave that up to the closing admin. If the only existence of these creatures is in a non-notable book, they my view would say that they are obviously non-notable, and going through an AfD for them is just going to be a waste of everybody's time. Cheers --Pak21 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a long while these three votes were lying atop the page, unsigned. Of course all three are from editors with no other contributions to Wikipedia. 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
More