Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Lake (Greyhawk)

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 keep. Ρх₥α 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Lake (Greyhawk)

Diamond Lake (Greyhawk) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fictional town, no notability outside of D&D universe, cannot be cited from reliable sources outside fanbooks, pure cruft Pilotbob 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing showing that this is notable in real-world context. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Soleil above. Law & Disorder 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Town plays large role in the Age of Worms adventure path.--Robbstrd 06:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this town's role in Age of Worms establishes real world notability. Pilotbob 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This proposal is cruftcruft. Colonel Warden 11:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this vote addresses the notability and WP:RS issues surrounding this proposal. Pilotbob 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article asserts notability and provides an adequate source - the article in Dungeon. Your supposed reason to delete is just empty abuse. Colonel Warden 15:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that we disagree here. I don't feel that an article in a fanzine establishes notability. I also disagree that my reasoning is "empty abuse". I simply brought this matter up for discussion. Pilotbob —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would an article in a musiczine help establish notability for a band? Yes? Then why can an article in a roleplaying magazine not establish notability for a location in a roleplaying universe? Are you telling me that Dungeon is not a reliable source? Dungeon is to D20 roleplaying as Kerrang! is to British rock music. J Milburn 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Dungeon was a professional magazine, not a fanzine. The proposer keeps trying to demean the topic with loaded and derogatory language. He is entitled to his low opinion of the topic but I don't like it is not an adequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden 19:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that D&D is notable, but notability is not inherited. My argument has nothing to do with whether I like this D&D or not, but whether the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. A notable music magazine mentioning a band is totally different than a magazine designed for D&D players mentioning a fictional place within the D&D universe. Pilotbob 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dungeon is notable, having had a comparable circulation to Kerrang!, say. It didn't just mention this place, it had a feature article upon it. So, this is not totally different. Hyperbolic assertions are no reason to delete. Colonel Warden 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• A fictional place should be held to different standards than things that actually exist. Pilotbob 21:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia less notable than the Encyclopaedia Britannica because it is virtual rather than being printed on paper and bound in leather? Notability is in our minds rather than being a matter of physicality. Colonel Warden 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia regardless of whether it is electronic or paper bound. However, Diamond Lake is not a real place. Pilotbob 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• ...How come? It's not in the rules, and things like the character of Harry Potter or the cast of The Bold and the Beautiful are known literally to hundreds of millions. --Kizor 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Diamond Lake surely does not have the notability of Harry Potter. Pilotbob 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes? I'm just using it to demonstrate that fictional things can still be significant. To reiterate, why should fictional places be held to different standards? --Kizor 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Books produced by professional authors for a commercial market are not fanbooks. As WP:CRUFT2 says, cruft is not a valid or useful reason for deleting something. The stated grounds for the AfD are false or irrelevant.--Prosfilaes 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• question I would appreciate some discussion here of whether it is a notable place within that fictional world--the article does not give enough information for an outsider to tell.DGG (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  A good question, and depressingly surprising in its rarity. Thanks for asking it. --Kizor 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Answer I quizzed a D&D-playing acquaintance about this last night. His memory of Greyhawk was rusty but when I said that this place was the start of the Age of Worms, he said that it was indeed significant and hence notable. Colonel Warden 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• keep - appears to be a maor setting within the game. Artw 04:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• so? what makes it notable in the real world? Law & Disorder 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• *Comment' - well, the question about its fictional status was asked immediately above. --Kizor 05:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• that was a keep vote. being important in the game dosn't matter a hill of beans here since wikipedia isn't in-game. Law & Disorder 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course being important in the game matters; something that is a notable enough fictional part of a notable enough fictional work is notable.--Prosfilaes 12:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not according to out standard of notability. We have to have significant, non-trivial coverage of the topic by sources independant of the subject. i ^(talk) 18:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is simply untrue. All the sources here are either fantasy novels relating to D&D or Dungeon magazine which is "is a magazine targeting people who play role-playing games, particularly Dungeons & Dragons" It can hardly be said that these meet the WP:NOT definition of a reliable source. This article does not contain any information about a "real-world context", nor is it anything, but plot information. Additionally, per WP:FICT "For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise" I do not believe that these sources can meet that definition. Pilotbob 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is a magazine "targeting people listen to electronica" suddenly not a reliable source? Every magazine targets someone, and yes, D&D players are people.--Prosfilaes 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, reading the article on Dungeon indicates that the magazine focuses "solely on Dungeons & Dragons". Therefore, it may contain information that, while notable to players of D&D, is not notable in the real world. Pilotbob 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• There's not a magazine in the world that doesn't contain non-notable information. Why is Dungeon being singled out here?--Prosfilaes 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am not saying that the information can never be notable, just that an article about a D&D related place in this magazine would not carry the same connotation of notability that would come from an article about in, say, Time magazine. Pilotbob 17:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Time would not be a reliable source on this topic as they have no special competence in this area and would be inclined to exaggerate and sensationalise to make their copy more exciting. Colonel Warden 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I was speaking to notability established from an independent source. A work in the universe of D&D certainly would have better information about Greyhawk, but cannot establish notability in the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dungeon's not exactly an independent magazine, as last I heard it was primarily a bi-monthly collection of D&D adventures from the same source as D&D itself, so the argument is very flawed. I'd suggest that this, and any other cities from greyhawk, be merged into a single article on Greyhawk. D.C.Rigate 09:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:Your information is woefully out of date. Dungeon has been monthly for several years now, and was published by Paizo Publishing (NOT the owners of D&D) at the time when Diamond lake gained importance.--Robbstrd 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Mention of the fictional location "Diamond Lake" in game settings like this (see page five) does not confer notability, anymore than listing of a place name in telephone directory. This location is not even notable in terms of the development of the game, as scholar search shows. --Gavin Collins 11:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Per The Five Pillars 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.' It is therefore not exclusively about academic scholarship but should also support a general and specialist readership. This would include fans of the Greyhawk D&D universe who are sufficiently numerous that works covering it routinely appear in the NYT best-sellers list. This topic may seem trivial or frivolous to other editors but I don't like it is not sufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment People come to Wikipedia because it is relatively free of the spam and fancruft returned by a simple google search. This fictional location should be reloated to fancruft.net, where it will be better supported, by pillars or by its fanbase. --Gavin Collins 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Bull. They come to Wikipedia because it provides the information they want, and yes, free of spam. However, if you're looking for Diamond Lake, you're looking for what you define as cruft, and if you're not looking for Diamond Lake, it's not going to jump out and grab you. Not only that, Wikipedia is one of the most crufty sources of information on the web; where else does biographic information on Lovecraft come with a complete list of musicians who made song based off of Lovecraft's works?--Prosfilaes 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Correction: people come to WP because it provides the information free of spam and cruft because it has reliable primary and secondary sources, which this article does not. "It better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources"[1].--Gavin Collins 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A reliable source' is defined as '...a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' The point is not that it should have academic status but that it should be trustworthy on the matter in question. So, in this case, a trustworthy citation for this fictional game locale is not National Geographic but a relevant specialist published authority, viz Dungeon. Horses for courses. Colonel Warden 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This article is not only sourced, but impeccably sourced, to the most authoritative sources possible. There are no better sources for finding out about Diamond Lake in Greyhawk than the sources provided.--Prosfilaes 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The truth is that this information is surely accurate regarding Diamond Lake, but not sufficient to establish real world notability Pilotbob 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article is not well sourced at all; firstly there are no footnotes; secondly, it is not clear what the primary sources state. I presume they are passing references to this fictional location, otherwise why would an article with only 5 sentences have 5 references? --Gavin Collins 23:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is not a valid response to formating issues. Artw 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge a tight summary into the Flanaess article. — RJH (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It can easily have the right sources added. businessman332211 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Age of Worms, not seeing any sign of even fictional notability beyond its connection to this "Adventure Path". --Stormie 23:01, 1 November 2007 (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.