Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. Sandstein 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark

edit

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

Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no meaning, and cites a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 03:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sariel Xilo, I would say Daranios may be the native German speaker you need. :) BOZ (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I had that magazine, I would be happy to add to the article. Unfortunately, I have very few Envoyer issues. Daranios (talk)
  • Keep. I don't see how any of the points of WP:GAMEGUIDE applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? The German rpg index supports rpggeek that Envoyer #47 has a review of the German version. So there seem to be two reviews, which would be the minimum requirement to fulfill WP:NBOOK, right? I don't have access to that issue of the magazine myself, so a merge and redirect would also be fine for me until someone can add more. Daranios (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Find better sources. Dragon is not presumed to be independent, regardless of language. The obscurity of these sources suggest that they do not meet WP:RS for notability. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book is treated in at least two independent sources, Pyramid and Envoyer. Granted, they are not the New York Times, but according to WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". So are there any well-founded suspicions why either should not be reliable? Otherwise I think they should count. The only problem I see is that so far noone here could ascertain the quantity of the Envoyer article. Daranios (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not merely the quantity of the source that matters. Since all sources are judged in context, we cannot assume these sources are appropriate, reliable, or even usable. Even if this book was mentioned in the NYT, we would still need to evaluate that coverage accordingly. Avoid WP:CITEBOMBing. If this work is noteworthy, there will be some indication why it is noteworthy beyond its mere existence. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As we were just discussing if there are enough sources, WP:CITEBOMBing hardly seems the problem here. I also see none of the four examples in WP:CITEBOMB apply. Do you? As for context, having magazines about role-playing games judge an rpg supplement seems appropriate to me. The article does already have a significant reception section which tells you why anyone should be interested in this supplement, without even taking into account the Envoyer. So the common complaint of being mostly plot-summary does not apply, and it seems these source are indeed useable. And I can tell you, the Envoyer was a solid if small rpg magazine. Pyramid was an award-winning one. So I ask you again, if you know of any facts that should let us doubt their reliability. Otherwise I stand with my keep opinion. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably hold-off on responding to every comment in an AFD you disagree with. You've already made your position clear, and the purpose of these discussions is to invite outside perspectives.
Since we have not actually evaluated the Envoyer source, we cannot know if it's usable. Until it has been properly evaluated, it's functionally useless for Wikipedia. Adding it to the article would be adding a citation, not a source. Adding a citation to preserve an article is cite-bombing in the general sense.
The "Reception" section is based on the Pyramid source which is over-used in the article already, and a product listing written by Appelcline on a site which doesn't appear to meet basic WP:RS. While Appelcline may be a topic expert (or might not be) this is not a valid source for notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The English original version of Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark has been reviewed in issue #39 of the German rpg magazine Envoyer (while, as has already been said, the German translation is reviewed in #47 of the same magazine). This adds no new source for the sake of notability, but should allay fears that too little is said to count! Daranios (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drizzt_Do%27Urden%27s_Guide_to_the_Underdark&oldid=976826581"