Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Dukes of Aaqa

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. east.718 at 00:27, 11/4/2007

[edit] Wind Dukes of Aaqa

Wind Dukes of Aaqa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability of the subject cannot be establised from independent reliable sources. Sources listed are all D&D related publications. Regardless, there is no real world context for this information. Pilotbob 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn D&Dcruft. JJL 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete - has no or little presence in the real world. Law & Disorder 06:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Wind Dukes have a history dating back to the Rod of Seven Parts from the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide. If the article is kept, it needs to be edited to reflect this. BOZ 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

thats a reason to keep? what about the notability issues? Law & Disorder 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per BOZ. Several D&D products have been influenced by the Wind Dukes, including a novel, a boxed set, and an Adventure Path. Also, this propossal is Cruftcruft, and a result of Pilotbob wishing to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--Robbstrd 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment since the WP:POINTs seem to be WP:N and WP:RS, that may not be so bad. JJL 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Robbstrd unjustified attempt to discredit the nominator is out of order; if he had reliable secondary sources to support his assertion, you would have thought he would have put them in the article when he wrote it. --Gavin Collins 09:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dungeon & Dragon are both reliable secondary sources.--Robbstrd 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this article has insufficient content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of fictional characters outside of the game settings from which they are derived. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment i don't see anyone giving evidence why this is notable. ^Law/_Disorder 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Please see my comments about the novel, boxed set, etc.--Robbstrd 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

None of that looks like it's independent of the subject... ^Law/_Disorder 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, aren't Dungeon and Dragon published by the same company that makes these very products? JJL 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Check the references. Dungeon #124, 129, & the Age of Worms Overload are published by an independent company.--Robbstrd 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in the old days, TSR's wacky lawyers would have sued someone just for having an accessible web page on the topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Irrelevant. This isn't the "old days," and TSR is no longer the IP holder.--Robbstrd 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - cruft, no real world perspective, no secondary sources, Wikipedia's not a role-playing game manual. I wish there'd be a D&D Wikipedia to transwiki these things into. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:48, 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.