Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The realm of no!


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 00:03, January 17, 2008

The realm of no!

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, unverifiable, and previously deleted content. See below for more detailed explanation. g026r (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (and Salt, as per comments below) - Article originally resided at The Realm of No! (Deletion log). It was deleted under CSD:A7 twice, and was then recreated at its current location.  Was marked for speedy delete following recreation, but was not deleted as A4 and A7 were deemed non-applicable in this case.  My reasons are as follows:
 * Item is not notable, being a self-published copy of a module that was submitted unsolicited to TSR and was not published, and of which less than a dozen total copies were produced by the author.
 * Though rejection vs. being accepted and merely unpublished cannot be verified with any degree of certainty, but both Gary Gygax and David "Zeb" Cook have stated that they have not heard of the module and do not believe it would have been accepted for publication. (Gygax: (Username: Col_Pladoh), Cook:  (Username: Zeb))
 * References consist of message board discussions questioning what precisely the item is.
 * Google hits for "Realm of No!" and "Kim Ryan" result in only 6 hits, of which 5 are the message board discussions -- consisting largely of people saying they've never heard of the subject of the article -- listed in the article as references.
 * The original version of the page (since deleted) made guesses at value and contained gushing praise sourced to unnamed persons; combined with the sudden appearance of multiple accounts all with knowledge of a module of which less than a dozen copies exist, this suggested that the page was created in an attempt to increase the visibility and thereby price of an otherwise inconsequential item of no particular value. g026r (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources to verify content.  A self-published module with only ten copies doesn't seem very notable, either.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely reeks of hoax, and wouldn't be notable even if it were true. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - not notable at all. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS and WP:N  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  play it cool.  ☆ 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP AS IT IS CANON per WP:RS and WP:N Module is canon. Do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.192.32 (talk)
 * - 190.50.192.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And rare and worth bajmillion bucks too! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt titles. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chuckie berry (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. A self-published module drifts a bit too close into the realm of things made up one day. Non-verifiable, non-notable, but not a candidate for speedy. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and Salt  One of likely hundreds of submitted but unpublished manuscripts if it isn't a hoax.  This article as been duplicated at King Bill and Rio de Nostra in an attempt to get around this Afd, though both are up for speedy deletion. Edward321 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also at Die Republikaner auf Nein. I didn't add a speedy tag to that one as it has an AfD tag on it already. -- g026r (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because those titles were newly created as an end run around the AfD process, I have speedy deleted those titles because they were created disruptively. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Either a hoax or a self-published module; either way, not notable enough for an article. Even if it had a credible source saying "E. Gary Gygax played it with his friends on January 6, 1982, 'for a laugh' (ref: "Very Reputable Role Playing Magazine", December 1999, p. 1d6+3)" it'd still be nonnotable. Mass publication or bust. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:29, 11 January 2008 (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.