Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isle of the Ape


 * 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 keep after rewrite. Chick Bowen 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Isle of the Ape

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This gaming supplement has no independent sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 05:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions.   --Gavin Collins 05:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN, zero GNS hits, not seeing any other immediately applicable sources that meet WP:RS MrZaius  talk  10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure what search you made, but how exactly did you get 0? Turlo Lomon 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: a merger to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules would seem preferable to deletion if that's consensus. No !vote from me (yet) as I haven't thought this one through. --Pak21 10:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already there, and would be unchanged by a merge. MrZaius  talk  15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh. Me stoopid. "Redirect" rather than "Delete". Cheers --Pak21 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Module is from before the internet got big (pub 1985). Google hits are invalid for this sort of thing. There are written reviews, etc. but they are hard copy. It will take a bit to track them down. With the nom putting up 10-20 articles a day, it is a bit hard to keep up with his nonsense. Article can be fixed, but a future merger to consolidation of Greyhawk articles would be more appropriate. However, this will take some time (see reason above). The list suggested above would be extremely unwieldly, and based on Gavin's past experience, would be nominated for deletion next (see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_GURPS_books).  Based on the numerous tags that have no bearing what so ever on the article, I am suggesting a bad faith nomination. Does that sound harsh?  Then, take a look Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins. Turlo Lomon 09:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment regarding List of Dungeons & Dragons modules.... taking a look at that, it is already incredibly unwieldly. I own over 100 more books that would qualify for that list. There is a better way to handle it, and being bullied into "fix NOW or delete" is not the way to do it. Turlo Lomon 09:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another Comment Rebuild has started. Am I the only one who finds a location being written about for over 20 years notable? Turlo Lomon 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Request Could we please have this AfD relisted for furter discussion, unless Gavin would like to request the AfD to be closed. I found some additional references online that need to be checked out, in addition to the magazine ones which I need to find. That is, if you feel I haven't shown notability sufficiently at this time. Turlo Lomon 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that you have added more primary references and cross referenced with footnotes, which makes this article a lot better than a lot of articles in WP, and your efforts have to be commended. But to be honest, the content is so insubstantial (i.e. there are no secondary sources) and makes no claim to notability. Can't you consider merger with another article? This little piece has barely enough content to construct a footnote. I suppose if this article is kept, at least you can say it has not been padded out with plot summary. However, this article represents all that is wrong about many RPG articles: it seems to be made of a bit of text tacked on to a pretty picture of the cover of the instruction manual.--Gavin Collins 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply As it stands now, I agree I have not yet shown expressed notability, but if you look at the talk page, I have more reviews to go through, plus the boxes of magazines at home to track down the reviews from its original release, which is secondary. This is the reason I have asked for additional time, because it is difficult to get through all of this in the middle of my work week. However, it should also be noted that a subject that has been written about for twenty years is a sign that it isn't a trivial subject. The sources are out there. They just need to be added. Turlo Lomon 05:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep after Turlo Lomon's work. Oh, and these still aren't instruction manuals. --Kizor 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is sourced now, has notability. Web Warlock 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Userfy The "sources" used are quite weak. We have the module itself, a bare mention in an Answers.com discussion of King Kong, a passing mention in a D&D fan forum, two other D&D modules cited through their writers, another D&D module, and a D&D adventure book (which means module). It would be nice to see sources along the lines of "voted best D&D module of 1985" or something. As for those editors who are upset by the pace of the deletion nominations, maybe it would be best to have the admins move the pages into your userspaces and to work on them there until sources can be found. SolidPlaid 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I would not object to this, as long as there is no prejidice against rebuilding it. I (hope) Gavin trusts my judgement on when it warrent inclusion again. Turlo Lomon 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Turlo Lomon.--Robbstrd 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, pdue to Turlo Lomon edits and addition about WG modules.Gnome Ninja 20:42, 11 October 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.