Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons


 * 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 merge to Dungeons & Dragons. TigerShark (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A meandering, poorly written, unsourced mess that looks like a TVTropes page, and has been marked as OR for 12 years. The contents of it, when even worthy of mention, should be noted in the respective relevant pages and not in obsessive fanboy fashion here. — nomination on behalf of, per request at WT:AFD, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dungeons & Dragons links to this as a Main Article, and there is a certain degree of redundancy with most of the important points being covered there. I would not recommend any merge back of this article into that one as the weight between the two seems about right at the moment. I'm a bit surprised that Appendix N, which famously covers most of this, doesn't have it's own article, but perhaps this being a sub article of Dungeons and Dragons explains that. Also it's entirely possible there's some material NOT covered by Appendix N which should be here. A possible structure that would make sense would be "Early History" (Chainmail and the like), "Appendix N" (everything in Appendix N, areas where Appendix N is contested), and "Furthur Influences" (everything coming after Article N). At any rate there are sufficient remedies to the deficiencies of this article that my vote is Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons, with the possibility of merging any sourced material from those first couple of prose paragraphs over, though a quick look makes this look unnecessary as both sections looks largely identical. The itemized list of examples of trivia, a lot of which is unsourced anyway, should not be retained. The actual prose information itself is, of course, notable, but as I said is already covered in full in the main article making this an unnecessary spinout. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two sections were originally copied from Dungeons & Dragons. The diff from 2007 to today is slightly messy, but the sections are largely unchanged. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dungeons & Dragons. There is some usable content in the first prose half. The following list needs WP:TNTing for failing probaby every single conviveable policy, it seems like 100% WP:INDISCRIMINATE OR, lisitng and speculating and some D&D conceps. What a mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dungeons & Dragons, doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dungeons & Dragons. Very poor article with OR, verfiability is also not present. Though the first two sections are decent, so I would prefer merging instead of deleting. VickKiang (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep With the whole book Appendix N : the literary history of Dungeons & Dragons as well as somewhat shorter treatments like in Of Dice and Men or Strictly Fantasy: The Cultural Roots of Tabletop Role-Playing Games written about it, this topic fullfills WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. This obviously needs more sources, but I don't think there is much original research here, as primary or secondary sources can be found for most. Adding more commentary by the latter to balance information based on interviews. WP:Deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." That's the case here in my view, so that's what should be done. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Artw and Daranios, the article is currently a mess, but it looks like the sources exist with which it can be improved. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Selective merge and redirect to Dungeons & Dragons. There's no doubt D&D is notable enough to support multiple articles, but this one's a mess.  By the time we're done cleaning it up (i.e. removing unsourced material, etc), there's really nothing there that's not already in the Development history section of the main page.  Yes, I know there aren't deadlines, but this has been tagged for 12 years.  If nobody's done this topic justice in 12 years, the odds that they're going to do so in the next 12 are vanishingly low.  And if somebody really does want to do a well-researched deep dive into this topic, there's nothing to prevent them from starting afresh and doing so.  Note the use of "selective" in "selective merge"; that means just merge the material which is truly significant and well-sourced that isn't already in the main article.  That may well end up being nothing.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a ton written on this topic. No problem meeting WP:N.  The question is if it meets WP:TNT and the answer, IMO, is not really.  It needs massive trimming and a lot of work.  But the topic is notable and at least the first few paragraphs are solid. Hobit (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2022 (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.