Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City


 * 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. FT2 (Talk 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * DRV overturned the original result outright to no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dungeons and Dragons module being claimed as non-notable. I'm bringing this here to establish a precedent that at least some of these modules are notable. Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: two references from unquestionably independent sources, White Dwarf and Different Worlds. The module received significant coverage in both these publications. Also rated as the 13th best adventure of all time and covered in Dungeon while this was edited and owned by Paizo Publishing, an company independent of Tactical Studies Rules and Wizards of the Coast, the original publisher and current copyright holder for this module. This would seem to me to clearly meet the standards required for verifiability and notability, thus there is no reason for deletion. --Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you get a point for the WP:POINT violation for nominating an article that you support keeping. --Jack Merridew
 * Delete — This is a non-notable, game-guide bit of cruft and there are dozens more where it came from. --Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability in a nutshell is that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The coverage in White Dwarf and Different Worlds is significant, and both White Dwarf and Different Worlds are unquestionably secondary sources independent of TSR/WotC. Why do you say this is non-notable? --Pak21 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a book, and the reviews and citations from 3 different publications covering the genre are sufficient for it to pass the notability guidelines for books. It needs cleanup of cruft contained within it (the book's TOC? Ah, no) but as the subject of an article, it itself is not cruft. Keep and slap the pointy nominator's wrist for not taking this to more appropriate venue. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure exactly what point I'm being accused of trying to make here. That this article contains sufficient sources to mean it is notable? This venue would seem to me to be entirely the most appropriate one for that, as it is where the most knowledgable editors on that subject contribute. --Pak21 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You brought an article to Articles For Deletion with the request that it not be deleted. If you don't want it deleted, don't ask to delete it just to prove a point. There are other, more appropriate venues for getting a discussion on the subject's notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The two sources in question say that the game was "a good buy" (at $4.00) and is rated "5/10". I don't think that these qualify as reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are failing to distinguish between what the sources say, and what is quoted in the article. --Pak21 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment I can only comment on what is quoted in the article - which is trivial low-qulatity coverage and cannot be intepreted as a reliable secondary source by a long stretch of the imagination, even one as overactive as an RPG enthusiast's. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article includes references to establish notability. White Dwarf and Different Worlds are both reliable secondary sources. Rray (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - article needs some cleaning up, but it has sources and more can be found. The module in question was voted as one of the 30 greatest adventures of the first 30 years of D&D by a third party publisher. Web Warlock (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominating editor has established notability of game book. Now there's an odd one, nominator votes Keep - first time I've seen that. :)  Hope this works out for you Pak, instead of backfiring... BOZ (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Articles for deletion/Omgili :-) --Pak21 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would debate there, that the nominator didn't seem entirely sure what should happen with the article. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and this is just the latest new fun trend.  ;) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete as pure gamecruft, with indifferent content ("a good buy"? 5/10? C'mon.). Also fails WP:BK. Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming you meant WP:BK, out of curiosity, why don't you think it passes criteria 1? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember "cruft" is not an arguement for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT Web Warlock (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Webwarlock, read the guidelines next time. Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft - vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability - is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. However, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it's cruft. - hence gamecruft with indifferent content. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: however, Dwellers of the Forbidden City has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (White Dwarf and Different Worlds) and is thus presumed to be notable per WP:N. The fact it didn't receive stellar reviews is neither here nor there when discussing its notability. --Pak21 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this game guide fails WP:BK. Only an RPG fanatic would assert that a book of game instructions are notable without reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. Product reviews and fansites are standard fare for all games, and can't be taken as evidence of notability on their own. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Game guide? Where's the instructions?  Who is being told how to do what exactly in this article?  There's no plot summary, just a quotation of the back cover text (which, perhaps, doesn't belong in the article).  I look at WP:BK and find the word "reviews" in criteria 1 for notability.  Neither White Dwarf nor Different Worlds were associated with TSR.  I added a reference from Wizards of the Coast.  Despite User:Pak21's remark, while Wizards of the Coast are the current publishers of D&D, they certainly were not at the time that this game module was published, and were not the publishers of this module in 1981 (I don't think WotC was even a glimmer in the eye of anyone in 1981).  That WotC reference's mention of this game module is admittedly brief, but it does back up the claim that this module was first used in a tournament at Origins (which to some, at least, is also a claim to notability).  How are any of these three references not secondary sources because of the independence of them from the publishers (TSR)?  These sources aren't merely blogs or "fansites" as you mention.  Could you clarify for me how this still fails WP:BK, please?  Furthermore, the comment that "only an RPG fanatic..." might be bordering on breaching WP:CIVILITY by attempting to disparage others commenting in this AFD.  --Craw-daddy | T | 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment can you illustrate reliable sources which should cover RPG books outside the field of RPG? That way other editors that is interested in they field can reference their work properly with those you point to. Calling people RPG fanatics does isn't really helping much. For example, I source the bio articles that I created with journals and the video game stubs I fixed with Gamespot and Ign staff reviews and news but not vice versa. Just asking. Since you know what is not a reliable source. Maybe you know what is.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Product reviews are legitimate reliable secondary sources. I agree that Gavin's comments regarding "RPG fanatics" is a breach of WP:CIVILITY. I'm sure that it's frustrating for Gavin that the consensus doesn't usually agree with his countless tags and AfD's, but that's no reason for namecalling. Rray (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find Gavin's comment uncivil. He may have chosen slightly better language, but I find this tendency to whine about incivility every time someone uses a colorful turn of phrase, depressing. We must aspire to more than an online community of sloughing deltas, RPG fanatics or no. Eusebeus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gavin does have a history of condescending incivility to those who think differently than he does, so it's nothing new. I try to ignore it and move on. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Collins has either no idea what D&D is, or he's doing it in order to sound condescending. He's about as impartial as Tomas de Torquemada when it comes to RPG articles (which he has tagged in droves). Anyhow, I'm going to !vote
 * Comment This is not a game guide. It's not even sort of a game guide.  Please explain. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete on this one, on grounds that notability cannot be established. In my opinion, the same is true for nearly all D&D supplements and nearly all in-universe D&D articles. Per Wikipedia guidelines as written the categories in question need to be decimated forthwith. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not in favour of a scorched earth policy involving decimation, but I agree that merger or consolidation of these modules, stock locations, deities, characters (few if any of which have any notability) into a useful list - this would be a big improvement to to RPG articles. Incidently, these modules, adventures and supplements (aka game instructions) do not require experts to divine whether they are notable or not; what they do need are reliable secondary sources to provide evidience that they are significant. This artlicle reads like a review for a favorite book. If article like this keep getting written, Wikipedia will be watered down to a blog of games played by RPG enthusiasts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you please explain White Dwarf and Different Worlds are not reliable secondary sources? --Pak21 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said why above. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, no you haven't since your statements are incorrect.  Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Nom. (Never thought I'd say that.)  Multiple, independant sources have been provided. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Ranked #13 on by time Dungeon Magazine (not owned by the publisher of the module), cites from White Dwarf.Hobit (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nom. The provided sources are both reliable and sufficient.Shemeska (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not even see why this is disputed. We all agree (per WP:N etc.) that multiple independent sources imply notability; here there are multiple independent sources, clearluy cited; ergo, the subject of the article is notable. Do I miss something? Goochelaar (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is because there are a group of editors who are going after "Fancruft". The raw number of "not notable" tags that a few editors have placed on nearly all D&D pages is amazing. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have added 7 6 new references and expaned the History section (was Reception), still have a few more places to look. Web Warlock (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 3,470 ghits for whatever that's worth. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * see WP:GHITS --Jack Merridew 06:14, 23 December 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.