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 Concensus. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts[edit]

Rod of Seven Parts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fictional stick or wand that fails WP:FICT. Has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:FICT outside of the Greyhawk canon, and no primary sources to indicate if this artifact has any significance within it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, major artifact in the D&D game since its first appearance in the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide (well, technically it first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry, but that's splitting hairs). Has appeared in several books since then, most notably as the subject of an eponymious boxed set/adventure book in 1996, and played a key role in the Age of Worms adventure path. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not sure why you created this article in the first place; when you say it is the subject of an adventure book, do you mean a game guide? Is this a prop for a game, or is it the subject of literary fiction? If it is prop created for a game, how can it be notable, even within the game? Surely player in a role-playing game would not act out being a stick? Please clarify. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess. This is yet another article you are trying to delete without having any idea at all what it is about, correct? Given your comments, it seems I'd have to give a whole lot of exposition to explain the answers I would give to your questions, and this doesn't seem like the place for that. Would you do us all a favor and do some research before sending articles for deletion? Here's a suggestion, try an open dialogue with people on each article who know something about the subject *before* starting the AFD process, so that you can better understand the signficance of each item before proceeding, so that you can at least seem like you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry if that sounds uncivil, I intend it as a bit of harsh constructive criticism. You'll encounter less hostile opposition if you display less ignorance of the subject, I think. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I necessarily agree with this nomination, but the article should be the place where the notability of the topic is fully demonstrated. In its present form it does fail to do so, at least for the readers who are not knowledgeable about D&D. I don't see any content explaining its importance (for the casual reader) in a literary series. The reader should not be required to drill down to the Adventure Path link to see what that means. Nor is the meaning or importance of the Age of Worms explained. What I do see is a lot of unexplained, campaign-specific information. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My interpretation of BOZ's comments are that this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. I would recomend to him that he read this guidance note *before* he creates stubs about subjects that have no notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, as they fall outside of the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I stopped creating new D&D related articles a long time ago (this one was from Feb 2006), when I realized how many delete-happy editors there were out there who love nothing more than to get rid of stuff they find useless, confusing, or uninteresting, using the wikipedia guidelines to justify their contempt. You're not the first, you won't be the last, but you've been the most persistent so far. Why waste my time and effort, when for some people it's far easier to destroy than it is to create? Still, I'll fight for what's already here as long as there are others who want to see the material stay. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can understand your frustration as the RPG notability guidelines which would have helped you to create an article on significant topics have only been recently been created. My advice to you going forward is to channel your energy into creating several good articles, rather hundreds of stubs which fail the guidelines. Alternatively, there are lots of other Wiki's that will welcome the content of this stub such as fancruft.net. If this stub is transwikied, then we are in a win-win situtation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks.  :) But the fact remains that I'm just not interested in creating any more D&D articles unless the notability guidelines are loosened to allow for things which have not recieved coverage in multiple independent/secondary sources. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite This article would be more properly about the adventure series than the artifact itself. Unfortunately, it sort of predates the internet explosion, so finding appropriate references may be hard. At the least, however, this should be redirect to a page listing the various D&D adventure modules. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article does need to be rewritten and referenced. I have stacks of old Dragons and White Dwarfs (a mag not owned by TSR/WotC) that references this. It is going to take me longer than a week to get them all. Web Warlock (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pointing out that an article is not currently sourced up to satisfaction is one thing, but making the claim that it is not possibly sourceable in light of multiple and well-known primary sources is quite another, and has been done far too frequently and reflexively of late. Established precedent has been repeatedly upheld in AfDs of this nature that marginally "independent" sources such as magazines are sufficient to provide evidence of notability when the game/fictional systems to which they belong are very notable; depth and quality come into play more than number and strict independence in cases like this because (and how about this for real-world significance) it's what actually sells those magazines and books. And note well: the purpose for "multiple secondary sources" is fact checking, an issue that is hardly critical in fictional characters and objects of which the characteristics and functions are defined by their creators and developers. While consensus can indeed change, I see no indication that it's about to from the current climate in the articles-for-discussion community. Our focus, therefore, must be on improving what we have, and if we can't do it, or don't think we should, let others do the work. At the very least, a merger should be performed into the over-arching topic in order to preserve significant information as per the arguments and most likely outcome here. In short, keep per my arguments and the outcome of multiple former AfDs such as this, this, this, this, etc. etc. ◄Zahakiel► 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would have to disagree in this instance. Compare with possibly the most famous rod of all - the one owned by Moses; note that an article featuring this artifact has not yet been attempted with good reason: it would require citations from specialist journals going back a hundred years or more to support its notability. By contrast, the Rod of Seven Parts, although it is probably based the more famous biblical artifact, has no notabilty because it derived from game guide. I can't imagine any college professors ever writing a paper on such a subject, because their is no source material to draw on, as the lack of hits on Google scholar shows. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Once again, you're mistaken. Please see Aaron's rod. Again, Gavin.collins is showing his unwillingness to do the tiniest bit of research before taking action, which is one of the main reasons why so many people have issues with his uninformed deletion sprees.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Better yet, Moses' rod actually does appear have its own article, as well. BOZ (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - In this instance, huh? :) Well, just as we have a WP:WAX page that indicates the importance of discussing the article in question rather than comparing it to other articles, so I have to raise an objection to your comparison with a real-life artifact with thousands of years of literary history. If your personal standard for notability is so high, no wonder you're so quick with the AfD and "Recommend deletion" buttons on your keyboard. I believe that there should be an article on Moses'/Aaron's Rod, and maybe I'll look into starting that, (and apparently there is one, as the two editors above indicate; further evidence of the haste to push for and justify deletion without considering what the reasearch would or reasonably could show - Z.) but that doesn't have anything to do with this matter, and I entirely disagree with your position in both this AfD and in general about the notability of fictional elements. I notice that in your reply to BOZ above you cite a proposed guideline that may or may not even cover this entry, and with good reason: there's nothing in Wikipedia that precludes an article like this from existing, particularly in light of the precedent that yourself and about 3 other editors appear bent on ignoring on a regular basis. Admittedly, your particular contributions have been a little more thoughtful than some of the near-mindless botting I've seen in these discussions, and I appreciate that, but I reject your statement that this item "has no notabilty because it derived from game guide." Apparently, other editors believe this entry can be sourced better than it now is, and how it stands at the moment has been quite enough to retain other articles on similar topics. We should not keep one article just because others like it exist, as I said above, but this doesn't mean that the reasons others are kept should not be applied to the latest discussion taking place. I re-iterate my opinion that this article should be kept, especially in light of the work others have committed to contributing to its improvement. I think it's in the intrest of the community to assume they're being honest about their ability to do so. It's high time we start paying attention to what the WP:N guideline actually says, the second sentence of which indicates that it "should be treated with common sense;" I haven't seen an over-abundance of that (from either side all the time, really). ◄Zahakiel► 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is more to doing research than looking things up on Google. Web Warlock (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BOZ, et al.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I seriously doubt that secondary reliable sources can be located. Wikipedia is not a game guide. There is no information at all regarding the real world significance of this fictional rod nor can a real world context be established. Pilotbob (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the "real world significance" of Tyrfing, for instance? Can the "real world context" of the Sampo be established? Objects and characters in fiction do not have a "real world context" except possibly as an allegory. Your criteria are bunk. Freederick (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all fictional objects and characters have real world context; there just may not be adequate sources to allow for Wikipedia articles. Articles on fictional things need to be written from the perspective of the real world. Try reading Jason Vorhees, Pilot (Smallville), or Link (The Legend of Zelda) to see what is meant by "real world context". Jay32183 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability remains a problem. May I suggest that this could be a transwiki candidate to Gaming Wiki, or something similiar? Xymmax (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GamingWiki is for video games, mostly console games. This is an RPG item and not at all the same thing. Web Warlock (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - more references have been added. I have more to add from 3rd party publications, they require more work than a Google search. Web Warlock (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Marginal notability, and certainly not enough substantial third-party references to write a sustainable, substantial Wikipedia article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; one of the most notable artifacts in D&D, it's the title of a novel about the artifact, it's got a boxed-set written about it, it's got a thirty-year real-life history. "The Rod is notable for being one of only three magical artifacts that have appeared in in all three editions of the Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide", plus the books about it, plus the decades of references, more than make up notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Boz, Robbstrd, others. Article has been sourced by Webwarlock, who is willing to add more sources. Edward321 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This item has received extensive coverage outside of the gaming resource where it has first appeared; has had a magazine article detailing its history and a novel written about it twenty years after its first appearance; and is well sourced.
  The nominator's argument seems to be based on the notion "I've never heard of it so it must be non-notable." It is evident he didn't bother to do any research prior to the nomination, as many of his statements are erroneous. I am in total agreement with the argument by BOZ, that too many people nowadays seem to think that "editing" Wikipedia consists in arbitrtating and criticizing others work, without doing any writing themselves. The key word is "contributor" not "editor". How many contributions have you done, Mr. Collins? Looking at this list, just about the only thing you do is add Notability templates to all and sundry--there's over 500 articles that you "edited" in this manner, and precious little else. Freederick (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This stub has more references to primary sources than it has any content, which suggest the topic has been researched exhaustively, but turned up no real-world information. I have done the research too, and found nothing (except mentions in passing) that would suggest this rod is notable outside of the game. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to get involved in any private feuds, but I do think we can usefully reflect on just how much total and utter *****, not to mention self-promotion, hoaxes, and so forth, gets contributed, and how necessary it is that somebody pull up the weeds, even if they occasionally pull up a flower without realising it. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is clearly not self-promotion or a hoax, nor are most of the articles that come up in these feuds. It's a matter of great debate whether it's really is necessary to delete good verifiable articles, especially if you'll start pulling "flower"s with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm emotionally torn on this one. The article brings back many happy memories, and clearly it is very important in-game (and a fascinating piece of trivia in, as it were, the objective history of the development of the most notable RPG). If this were a D&D wiki it would definitely need expansion. In a general encyclopedia my head says (to my heart's dismay) that it is just out of place. And the "novel" that the item inspired is simply a TSR spin-off. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said which, it would be a shame to lose Webwarlock's careful sourcing in both TRS and other RPG publications; and I see that the article is part of a whole category, in which it is one of the most notable entries. Would it be possible to salvage the information as part of a lengthier single article with the title D&D magical items? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has multiple references. It might need additional cleanup, but that's no reason to delete it. Rray (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another non-notable prop. Interested crufters should consider breaking article into Seven Parts and Trans-wikiing them to the Corners of the Seven-Pointed Realm of Wikia. --Jack Merridew (talk) 08:41, 25 November 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.