Talk:The Ghost Tower of Inverness

Tags
Removed in-universe and notable tags. It describes a module (a book) not a fictional story. Also ranking and review I think make it notable. I think the other tags can go too. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it would be better (good form) to take this to Talk before removing the tag, especially as it appears that it's been around awhile. Here's my take on this:
 * 1) Firstly, the remaining tags absolutely are deserved as this article is barely referenced. REF tags are designed to attract attention of editors who can help source it. (Long ago, I had similar reactions to such tag placement.)
 * 2) As for the notability tag, I absolutely believe it should be thusly tagged. This topic doesn't even come close to the levels of notability of many articles that are being deleted daily. While I am an inclusionist, I cannot think of how to justify something like this when more-notable, more-referenced, and higher-content pages are deleted.
 * 3) I don't have a problem with in-universe versus out-universe tone. Usually, the first thing I read after one of those tags is "The ____________ is a fictional character/place/etc." and it's ridiculous. So on that topic, I agree with you that there is no need for an in-universe tag.
 * VigilancePrime (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference tag is necessary. I don't have a problem with removing the notabiliity tag, as I don't have any idea what any of this stuff is, so I can't really judge whether, within the sphere of D&D it's notable. And in-universe tags I feel are kinda stupid, so I would delete most if not all of them, and thus this one too. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now here's the point I was hoping someone would bring up: "within the sphere of D&D it's notable." I was (recently) personally attacked for adding a PROD tag to this article to evaluate it for non-notability, and the very person who attacked me and my edits used the opposite logic to delete other articles, stating in effect that notability within some sub-area was not sufficient for Wikipedia, but that a topic (article) must be notable on its own. Using that logic, there is no way that this article (the one he was defending in his attacks on me personally) qualifies as notable. Is that right or wrong? I don't know. My point is to bring to light a severe inconsistency with Wikipedia in general. This article is a great microcosm of that problem: IF this is notable WITHIN the D&D arena, does that make it notable for Wikipedia, or is notability within a notable topic insufficient? I would tend to err on the side of including this and other articles. I at the least attempt to be consistent in that respect. I would like others' thoughts on this both locally (this article) and globally (Wiki-wide). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (First off, what is a PROD tag?) I believe that if this article is notable within the D&D arena, it is notable for WP. If we did not use this criterion for notability, I think WP would lose a lot of information, which is notable to large sub-sets of wikipedians. I could not care less about the minutiae [sic] of D&D. But I acknowledge that D&D is a notable subject. If X is notable, then subsets of X are notable. I don't think it makes sense to say that D&D is notable and should be included, but that things notable to D&D are non-notable to WP.
 * Additional issue: I question whether this stuff is reference-able. It seems by its very nature to lack references. I may be wrong, but I'm throwing it out there. If it is unreference-able, it should be deleted on that ground. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part I agree with you. I think there is potential for a very slippery slope (A is notable, thus B is as part of A; Since B is notable, C, a part of B is, etc...), but at least for the first-level or so it's probably all good. A bigger problem comes in referencing. If it cannot be referenced, it becomes original research and thus deletable. Now, one CAN use the topic itself as a reference; most television episode entries do this either directly or indirectly.
 * I forgot: The PROD tag is a tag for an article believed to be non-notable and needing deletion. It's like an AfD, but anyone can remove the tag if they disagree with the non-notability. It's a way to do a quick check and if even one person objects, then the tag is removed and the article remains, at least until someone goes into the full AfD process. I inserted the tag and User:Pak21 immediately removed it, accusing me of acting in bad faith (even though he had been AfD-ing articles of much greater size, reference, and notability and belittling anyone who dared argue against him). The PROD tag is very useful to clear out articles that are obviously non-notable as well as finding out if anyone is even watching, editing, or in the process of improving an article.
 * Here's the problem: people have deleted pages such as The Adventures of Captain Proton which have the same level or more of notability (especially as they cover multiple episodes of a TV series, all of which have their own articles). That, and the second-time debate about the Laurel McGoff article have set (or are setting) the precedent that deletionists seek: minimalizing Wikipedia through the removal of anything that is not heavily referencable (though the actual number of references that suffice is variable on an IDONTLIKEIT basis). I disagree with this precedent and believe that it is more damaging to Wikipedia as it impacts not only content but also credibility. I am not convinced that this article is notable, but I wouldn't push a deletion on it. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (back to left) SEE ALSO: Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Proton (and inquiry regarding it at User_talk:Secret), Articles for deletion/Laurel McGoff (and more discussion at Talk:Laurel McGoff), and Articles for deletion/Section 31 (more talk at Talk:Section_31 - this also provides a good description of PROD versus AfD) for similar deletion attempts (and successes) of similar-in-notability articles (though I feel all of them are more notable than this one).
 * Let me reiterate that, though I do not feel this is greatly notable, I would not push for nor vote in favor of a deletion were it to (also) come to an AfD.) VigilancePrime (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the AfD page for McGoff, and I have to say, I think it's non-notable. The page is the CV of a 12 year old. Why shouldn't it be merged in to list of participants page as others have suggested? Just because the many points are referenced, doesn't mean they are important points. I know this is an odd place to try n talk about it, but I like to keep things flowing where they started for ease of reading the convo. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And another note (cause I wrote the above as you wrote your last!), Laurel McGoff is very notable within Kid Nation, which was broadcast nationally and had good ratings. How is that any different than this article being notable within D&D? See why I'm trying to get this all nailed down? Consistency, precedent, future. I don't see why the Laurel McGoff article should be cut out just as I don't see why this one or Section 31 should be (or The Adventures of Captain Proton should have been). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. First off, ty for the AfD v. PROD explanation. And I totally see you're point about consistency. My answer to it is lack of perfect analogues. I don't think there is enough info about McGoff now to warrant her own article. That's from looking at the article. It seems it would be easier to just have a paragraph on her in a "list of participants" article. In contrast, this article seems long enough to warrant keeping, plus it has a template. Templates suggest that someone is invested enough in the matter to develop a template for it. I think that establishes notability. And I wouldn't be against re-creating an article on McGoff in the future, if more info were available. But the details, such as her being on the honor roll, are not important. An analogy: an established actor (say David Hyde Pierce)...his WP article should not (and I'm willing to bet does not) mention whether or not he was on the honor roll in middle school. It just isn't important. So I would say that they seem inconsistent because they aren't in the same situation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTE — Notability "within some sphere" such as D&D does not establish true notability; Notability in the real world establishes notability. This article fails to establish its notability by a wide margin; the sources linked in the footnotes and references are mostly not independent and the 'rating' by White Dwarf is about as far from 'significant' coverage as you can get. I'm going to re-add the notability tag and I expect interested editors to address these issues earnestly before considering removing this clean-up tag again. --Jack Merridew 11:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate having to do this... but I agree with BOTH Carl and Jack. Yes, Carl, the "honor roll" line is pretty petty, but more information is better and that's why it is there (and it could come off). Jack is correct in the "real-world" notability, which is what I was getting at earlier in different words (mostly because catchphrases and sound bites like "real-world notability" tend to be a turn-off for some and a hollow facade of attack from others). This article should keep the notability tag, BUT the article (and the others I mentioned above, such as McGoff and Proton) should likewise stay. There is a point at which an article on Wikipedia may be borderline on references (some of the three mentioned are, some are not), may be doubtful on notability (all of them could be argued that way), and may be of niche value (a couple of the "list"), but when it comes down to it, having them enhances the total Wikipedia project, even if that enhancement is slight, and they should remain because of FIRST RULE, under the doctrine of WP:IAR. It is for this reason, and the common-sense logic of retaining information over deleting (or consolidating in ways that info is often/likely lost or difficult to find), that I would not support a delete vote on any of these articles (or, in the Proton example, continue to push for an overturn). Just because I don't care about D&D or you may not care about McGoff or someone else may not care about Captain Proton, that's not to say that enough people are not out there who would benefit from the entries. (As an example, I was very interested in the Proton article and not that it's gone, I can't find anything on this, whereas before I could. Does that help the project? No! It made Wikipedia less relevant, less informative.) VigilancePrime (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality of secondary sources
I claim that the ranking by the Dungeon Design Panel and White Dwarf (magazine) meet the requirements of secondary sources for fiction, and further the ranking by the Panel (first major review of adventures ever) meets the requirements for notability. I don't believe either point has been addressed above, but I'd like to hear why others disagree. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * see my post above where I point out that ratings are about as far from 'significant' coverage as you can get, and see Notability. Also, that Dungeon Design Panel was convened to produce article in Dungeon (magazine) which is hardly an independent source. --Jack Merridew 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do some research. This module was published by TSR, while the issue of Dungeon in question was published by Paizo.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus you seem to be ignoring the White Dwarf article. This is begining to look like you are making some sort of WP:POINT and certainly you have gone beyond the assumptions of good faith.  I think you have some sort og bias you are pushing here.  I will add more sources to this. Web Warlock (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That White Dwarf reference would appear to only be in regard to a specific limited edition of the game and has no bearing on notability. FYI, I do have a bias against non-notable articles cluttering-up this encyclopaedia.


 * To Robbstrd: An encyclopaedic article would, like, say who published this thang. The point is moot as Paizo published under license from Wizards which bought up TSR, so it's all of a piece. --Jack Merridew 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still a secondary source IMO. Plus, given the nature of the panel (many non-Paizo reviewers) the ranking is quite enough for notablity IMO. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God got a 5.0 out of 10 on imdb; do you know how bad a movie has to be to get that? And how is this not trivial coverage. Quite frankly, you're grasping a straws. This is not notable. --Jack Merridew 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability has nothing to with quality. I grabbed the first thing I saw out of my library. At least I am doing research and not commenting on articles I know nothing about. Web Warlock (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If I do not know enough about this subject it is due to the poor quality of the articles here. --Jack Merridew 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you need to go beyond this site for more research and then bring it back here. Web Warlock (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does a bad ranking score on IMDB have to do with the notability of the article's subject? Blatant displays of contempt for the subject matter might cause someone to question whether these edits are being made from a neutral point of view. Rray (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is this discussion being held here? I'd suggest it be moved to the talk page of the movie rather than a module. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)