Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood War


 * 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   no consensus. Leaning towards keep, but not enough to call it. Bulk nomination has only made this discussion harder to follow - individually nominating the articles is more likely to get a reliable result. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood War

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Also nominated:

These are eight articles about plot events related to Dungeons and Dragons, written entirely from an in-universe perspective. They have no out-of-universe notability and cite no out-of-universe sources. This clearly violates WP:NOT ("Plot-only description of fictional works") and WP:WAF ("the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources"). For more problems associated with these types of articles see WP:INUNIVERSE. Savidan 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked at the large number of magazines and the like devoted to reviewing RPG products to see if these can be sourced? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Plenty of third party sources from Pazio, Green Ronin, Fast Forward Games and others. Just no time for me to add these. If I could be given a week longer (when work is not killing me) I could do it. Web Warlock (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link to them so other editors can evaluate their utility and come to a more informed decision? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Timeline of wars in D&D or somesuch. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not really appropriate, as there is not a unified timeline of D&D. Rather, these fictional events are part of several distinct fictional storylines.  I do, however, agree that some could be folded into a setting-specific timeline page.  Resistor (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Blood War. This is a highly notable ongoing fictional conflict that actually spans several fictional settings.  Neutral on the others, but I would think a merge would be more appropriate than outright deletion.  Powers T 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete or Userfy these for now, since a user claims he can find sources if given time. Given that these articles have had years to find sources, they can spend some time as redirects now until the sources are found and the article can be restored. Abductive (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no timetable. If the user can provide good faith evidence that the articles can be improved, we should keep them, as they are still providing useful information, even if not the most important useful information. That said, I would like to see the references to make an informed decision first. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all – there is no deadline or timetable in which issues have to be resolved. These are all highly important storylines for the various RPG universes from which they come. It is highly likely that some out-of-universe notes and/or third-party commentary exists on each of these, but it's a matter of knowing where to look. I don't doubt that such sources exist, but they may not be found today, or even a week from now.  A merge is not out of the question - Blood Wars and Reckoning of Hell could be merged into some kind of "history of the Planes" if one existed, Crown Wars could possibly be merged into some Forgotten Realms article, and the remaining Dragonlance wars could be merged together - however, I feel that each of these have the potential to stand independently. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you can't come up with a single reliable source at all. Abductive (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably couldn't. But then, that's me; I don't know what anyone else is capable of. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the obligation of those saying keep to provide the reliable sources. BOZ, an experienced user who I have seen redirect articles that have no sources, can't find any sources. In a way, this admission is an argument for deletion. Abductive (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to refute the idea that I am arguing to delete, although as always anyone's arguments are subject to interpretation. I've never voted to delete anything and I'm not about to start. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm finding the attempted turn-around to be unproductive rhetoric. At no point has BOZ admitted that he has had the resources or ability for a reasonable let alone representative search. He's inexperienced in that. He has presented an educated guess of our ability to address grievances, and detailed his reasons. --Kiz o r  23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you accept the articles in your userspace and work on them there? Abductive (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We ought not keep an article because sources theoretically may emerge. If you have some evidence that sources exist, by all means, provide it, but we do not keep articles because maybe sources might exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Couse not, but that seems like a different situation than what BOZ is suggesting. I'm all for keeping articles that there's reason to consider likely fixable. --Kiz o r
 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all The War of the Lance wasn't just a major event and driving plot in the first three novels, but in the animated series, comic books, and games. The rest are the same.  They aren't just in books, but also role playing games, there many magazines dedicated to such things, and sure to mention them.   D r e a m Focus  23:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide us an example of such a mention? Abductive (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Blood War and War of the Lance. These are both important events in the D&D universes... the former spans most of the settings and has been present in most of the game's editions, and the second is the pivotal storyline of the Dragonlance series, IIRC (I'll do some source hunting in the next few days; I'm pretty sure that there are some for both of them). Delete all of the others as non-notable... they are also much too in-universe and I really don't think that much could be done with them unless reliable print sources can be found. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Merge War of the Lance into Dragonlance timeline. This is, essentially, the most notable event in the Dragonlance history and has been the main timeframe for a video game and an NYT best selling book series. Surely there are plenty of reliable sources on the game and series, but the fictional war itself doesn't seem to have many sources ( was all that I could really turn up online, but its only a one-page discussion). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to  Delete Merge Blood War as non-notable. Trivial mentions by Necromancer Games, which I'd argue is a reliable source, in, but nothing else that isn't just discussing the Blood War D&D minis set and the similarly named Planescape book. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely it should at least be merged to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons)? Powers T 23:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I hadn't thought of that as a merge target. That being the case, changed to merge. Thanks for mentioning that! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood War is also a major element in the video game Planescape: Torment. See The Nameless One. User:Resistor 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (or merge) Thisg ame is notable  enough and complex enough that a separate article is necessary. Since it's sourced from the work itself, it meets WP:V. No additional sources are needed.  DGG (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all — I tried to weed this WalledGarden most of two years ago (it's well-defended by Grawp;). This is simply an inappropriate depth of coverage. There is no need to merge these as the w:en:D&D-verse already has lots of lists, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, I understand the feeling--I have some walled gardens in mind myself... Wouldn't a merge take care of it--I modified my statement above--it would be helpful if you gave a fuller explanation with the noms, maybe. In any case, there should be redirects. DGG (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not looked, today, but I am rather sure these are in some list. That's the appropriate level of coverage for these D&D elements. Most all of the D&D "modules", settings, and (irony:) trolls have no real-world notability. Reviews in faszines, fansites, and books milking the franchise are hardly independent reliable sources. Show me an article in the Washington Post, and I'll believe. In many of these cases a redirect would be inappropriate. The D&D fans have merely gotten to the title first; why should Blood War be theirs? What about this book on Amazon? Blood War (Masquerade of the Red Death #1) . I'm sure there are other claimants to many of the above titles and the issue is the same across hundreds of thousands of so-called articles. This is a core issue with the inclusion of shite based on popularity with editors; they hijack names by being the first mover; this creates inertia in a biased direction. Oakdale, Texas, for example (vs Oakdale, Texas (Wishbone TV series)). This bias is fundamentally damaging to the project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a big deal to me - if we have a carelessly named article that is occupying a spot that should go to a different topic or a disambiguation page, that can be dealt with easily through moves by any moderately experienced editor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed; completely and totally regardless of whether the content of these articles is merged or removed entirely, the names will need to go somewhere. Whether they become disambiguation pages, redirects to another related topic, or new articles entirely is irrelevant.  Deletion is still patently unnecessary.  Powers T 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Phil; I just commented re this issue at Articles for deletion/Battle of Gunpowder River. Single examples can be dealt with. A successful grab of a title by a specific subject is a great way to promote a specific title as the primary meaning of that title, when in many cases some other subject is more appropriate. When a genre (think tv character names;) grabs titles en masse. the issue is not so easily corrected. The first mover has no difficulty, those seeking to remedy an issue have huge hurdles to face; endless discussions and battleground tactics. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands, delete . I will further note that I am extremely disappointed by the editors arguing for inclusion, who have ignored multiple requests to provide even the beginnings of evidence for the existence of sources. When one editor says "I bet there are sources but I don't have time to look" it is one thing. When multiple editors angrily insist on the existence of sources without actually providing even a hint of work on it, it appears to be lazy, cavalier, and shoddy editing of the worst and most embarrassing kind. Were editors less prone to the laziness and disregard for quality displayed here, those of us arguing for why fiction articles should largely be kept around would have a far easier time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * it's a pity few of the serious editors here have time for this--there are several hundred articles on fiction I know well that I want to improve, but the first step is to get them kept--or merged, which would do also.DGG (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, part of the reason we're not immediately working on getting the references is that too much is hitting us at once. If this were the only AfD current at the time, people could concentrate on it. But there are about 50 others! Nominating this way prevents an adequate response At the pace of nomination a month ago, with only 20 or so current at a time, we were able to find sources for many of them.  I still AGF, but this feels like a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the editors who work on these articles.  Were editors given a fair chance, they could work on articles--the current technique makes them work at defending afds. This is the classic asymmetry here between nomination for afds and trying to defend them. Anyone can easily without any research or any subject knowledge nominate any number in a few minutes. To defend them takes much longer.  DGG (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Has there been that much of a rash in the RPG area of late? That would change my opinions somewhat, for the reasons you discuss. That said, if this has been (as it usually seems to be) fairly well-distributed across areas of fiction, I would expect the D&D editors to step up to the plate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of AfDs at the moment; some by me. Not this one. I've not connived with anyone about this. The noms are spread across many genres so the "concern" should be of a wide group of editors. But it's not. Keepism — the anti-AfD mindset comes into play. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All, without prejudice to renomination for any individual article at a later date. As noted by several other editors, these scorched earth tactics when it comes to AfD's and "Walled Gardens" do more harm than good.  Articles written off by deletionists as hopeless cases have been improved to GA status - when editors were given enough time to do so.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a good point, and there have been many examples of this happening (e.g., Dwellers of the Forbidden City; that one actually was deleted and then DRV'd), but having done a search for sources as I described above I really can't find any. If sources suddenly turn up, the article(s) can always be restored anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should review the rational that was overturned there; it will be back because it's *right*. True notability derives from significant coverage from outside a genre; that's what independent actually means. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true, and I'd probably vote userfy --> redirect in a single AfD on any of the nominated. My oppose is more an oppose to the scorched earth tactics, which I think are opposite-of-beneficial.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  04:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Jack Merridew 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been tagged for clean up since February 2008, and since then it has attracted nothing but original research. More than enough time has been given for this article to be improved, yet not one reliable secondary source has been found to provide verifiable evidence of notability. There is no evidence of scorched earth tactics being applied to this group of articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The scorched earth tactics would be far less tempting if those who edit in fictional areas were willing to improve their articles without AfD holding a gun to their head. As that is not the case, and as in this case people are unwilling to put forth even a token amount of effort even in the face of an AfD, instead preferring to try to overwhelm objections via numerical superiority in the absence of evidence, the articles should be deleted. If editors in a subject area cannot be bothered to do quality work, we are not obliged to accept crap in its place. I'm all in favor of broad inclusion of fictional topics, but editors who are actively unwilling to work towards quality can, quite frankly, fuck off and take their contributions with them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point; agreed. fyi, I was looking at my contributions to http://annex.wikia.com/ — better than 500, contribs it seems. Of course, I don't edit on wikia; *at all*. They are all transwiki'd edits. So, they take the contributions of others with them (which I'm just fine with;). Seems the needed take-away here is that a lot of editors simply want crappy fancruft articles, and they are also in it for the argumentation. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. If a topic is notable, it remains notable regardless of how much effort has been put into its article.  Might I suggest that if you're resorting to crude vulgarisms as recommended courses of action for your fellow editors, that you might be a bit over-interested in the topic?  Is active, irreparable harm being done here?  Powers T 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All as these unsourced articles contravene basic Wikipedia policies for article content, as they are comprised unverifiable original research that is all plot summary. There is no evidence to suggest that their subject matter is in any way notable, and arguements based on subjective judgement that these articles should be kept fail to address the issue that they don't contain any encyclopedic coverage at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I fear attempts at trying to add citations to original research is just leading to the creation of a synthesis, which is worsening the reliability of the article. I have raised this issue with BOZ on the talk page, as I don't think he should be sticking his neck out for dubious content. No matter how well intentioned, I don't think it possible to make a silk purse from a pig's ear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For the very short term. BOZ has contacted me on my talk page and provided a credible sense of the sorts of sources he wants to look for, but also noted that real-life pressures make it difficult to do much with these in the next 24 hours or so. I am sympathetic to this problem, having run into it myself. BOZ is clearly a knowledgeable editor in the area, and he has done great work on other articles. Furthermore, the sources he says he wants to look at are good sources that are non-trivial to search. I do not think it is excessive to table the issue for a bit and let him do some work. At the very least I hope the closing admin will see fit to extend the AfD for a few days. I recognize that there are those who would prefer to merge or userfy until sources are found. However I point out that this creates a barrier to overcome in getting permission for the article to be recreated. I would prefer to give a good faith effort to find sources some time before doing that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can provide 3rd party publications. Green Ronin, Book of Fiends, http://www.amazon.com/Book-Fiends-Chris-Pramas/dp/193244209X.  Legions os Hell, http://www.amazon.com/Legions-Hell-Chris-Pramas/dp/0970104847/ref=pd_cp_b_1.  Armies of the Abyss, http://www.amazon.com/Armies-Abyss-Book-Fiends-System/dp/0971438005/ref=pd_sim_b_1. Fast Forward Entertainment, Encycolopedia of Demons & Devils (2002) and Encycolopedia of Demons & Devils II 2002.  I have more books, what I don't have is free time. Web Warlock (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Green Ronin Publishing is not 3rd party. Fast Forward Entertainment looks like a licensee. If you think you can eventually provide proper sourcing, would you be willing to userfy these pages? Abductive (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually they are 3rd party, there is nothing in their licensing agreement to state otherwise. FFE is the same.  Userfying takes them out of circulation for others to work on, so no, the pages need to remain to allow others to edit as well.  Web Warlock (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, they have licensing agreements? Abductive (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Green Ronin and FFE both use the Open Game License to publish products compatible with D&D, but this is an open license in a similar manner to cc-by-sa-3.0 and the GFDL, so Wizards of the Coast (the primary source) has no control over them or the content they put out. They're just using a license to make compatible products, and the license is open to everyone (not exclusive to companies that contact Wizards or the like), so I'd say that they are third-party and their products are reliable for content about D&D. It would kind of be like if a professional publisher used the cc-by-sa-3.0 license to publish content about Creative Commons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep any that aren't info from books with their own articles. That is, keep the first three articles for sure, and I think one of the Dragonlance articles doesn't have an book article the info could be added to. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Blood War and War of the Lance. Both were major cross product-line story elements that could not be easily folded into another page without detracting from the pages for the other product lines. The Blood War, for instance, is the subject of RPG books, a miniatures game, and significant mention in a major video game. The War of the Lance similarly is a defining element of the cross-media Dragonlance line, including novels, RPG products, and movies. Merge the others into their respective setting articles, or into timeline-of articles. Most of them lack the kind of broad exposure of the first two. -User:Resistor 17.224.15.109 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep Blood War and War of the Lance. Merge others into appropriate campaign articles/timelines. Each of first two are notable as the primary moving events of two AD&D2nd campaign worlds, covered in books, magazines (independent stuff like D8 and Shadis), plus a wide range of game products. TSR also released a collectible card game called Blood Wars in 1995, describing the same eternal cross-campaign conflict. BusterD (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I should note that I'm not actually opposed to massive rewrites of any of the articles involved. For the two I voted to keep, I consider them both notable enough for articles, even if those articles do not, in the end, look much like what they do now.  Indeed, they probably shouldn't. Resistor (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2009 (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.