Talk:Blackmoor (Greyhawk)

Notability
I think the footnote makes notability obvious. Also plenty of references. We can argue definition of primary vs. secondary, but I think it's pretty obvious. Please discuss before again tagging. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also 10,500 ghits on "blackmoor" and "greyhawk" together. All I checked appear related to this. Hobit (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited are secondary sources, as they originate from the publisher of the World of Greyhawk, TSR, Inc.. The ghits you refer to refer to fansites, in which the primary sources are regurgitated, and are not considered reliable because they do not offer any analysis, content or context about this fictional location. I would suggest to you that this article has no claim to notability at all, because it is a stock location created for an adventure module and has no fictional significance or notability outside the Greyhawk canon. For these reasons, the Notability Template is highly appropriate for this article. I would be most grateful if you would restore the template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note the importance Blackmoor plays in in the history of D&D (see last source which is NOT from TSR). Further, 10000 ghits is a HUGE number of hits to just ignore. Could you distinguish "fansite" from any other active discussion of a topic?  Hobit (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's one site that seems to offer some real-world context. Someone more knowledgeable in the ins-and-outs of Greyhawk could likely integrate this into the article better than I can. And here's another possible source of some relevance. According to the second reference, Blackmoor (as a fictional place) existed before the publication of the first edition D&D rules. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your first source is a fansite, so I am not sure it can be treated as a reliable secondary source because it is effectively self-published. The second source does appear to be a reliable secondary source, and does provide some evidience of notablity ass it says in its closing paragraph "Is Blackmoor of historical significance? Surely". However, it does suggest that Blackmoor could make an interesting section if it were to be merged into a larger article about the historical development of the D&D, rather than as a stand alone article. Without appearing to be disparaging, I would have to say that this source alone is not sufficient evidence of notablity according to WP:RS, which requires multiple secondary sources, and I would suggest to you that the notability template is still appropriate for this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)