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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established in previous discussions and may be confirmed by sources such as Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives. See also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first nomination was "No Consensus", and the second was kept more upon the fact that it was a bad faith nomination, rather than notability of the subject being established. I really don't think this can be considered a case of a disruptive nomination now. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do provide the sources then, because they certainly aren't in the article. And you do realize it has been just shy of six years since the last AfD, right? Another AfD would be suitable after sixth months of no improvement, let alone six years when standards have greatly changed. If that's the only source, it's hardly enough. TTN (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has plenty of sources and I just provided another one, which the mystery IP editor confirms is pretty good. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of the sources included in the article is from an official D&D product, and are thus not independent of the subject. These can not be used to establish notability, as stated by the Notability guidelines. Like I said below, the source you provided in this AFD is, as far as I can tell, the only source that talks about this item in detail that is independent of the subject. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources are just fine as far as I'm concerned. If they are official then that makes them authoritative and so they are excellent sources. Notability is just a guideline and so is weak. I give more weight to strong core policies such as WP:V and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a silly position and your opinion should be discounted in that case. Primary sources are worthless in establishing notability, else this site would be Wikia with a topic on every fictional element. You need third party sources. TTN (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no view on this article right now, I agree with TTN: that is a non-argument. Primary sources are often appropriate to use for information purposes, but they cannot determine notability, and notability (whether "just" a guideline or not) is what's in question here. Notability can't be ignored on the grounds that there are lots of primary sources available. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, where it is already included. The above mentioned Game Design book is actually a pretty good source, but as far I can tell through searches, it is the only non-primary source that discusses the Rod, which is not enough to support an entire article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent source found by Andrew D. BOZ (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to list). A single source independent of the franchise, and that calls it "rod of eight parts" rather than "rod of seven parts".--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons per Andreas Philopater, FreeKnowledgeCreator. The above mentioned Game Design book is a good source, but I would believe that more independent and reliable coverage is necessary to satisfy the notability for an independent article on here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2016 (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.