Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting


 * 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 a snowball Keep-- JForget 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This book of gaming instructions has no independent source demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 05:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions.   --Gavin Collins 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and snowball - The AfD was discussed on the talk page and the consensus was that the article should not be nominated for deletion. The article lists 2 references asserting notability. It's hard to assume that this is anything but a bad faith AfD nomination considering the nominator's editing history and the recent discussion on the talk page of this article and on the nominator's personal talk page. Rray 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Having read the discussion, I see no consensus was reached about notability or independent sources. The nomination is in good faith, and my suggestion to include this as a footnote in the article Greyhawk is a constructive one. --Gavin Collins 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment After re-reading the discussion on the article page, it seems to me that none of the editors support an AfD but you. Since you were recently approached by a number of editors and asked to stop disrupting the Wikipedia with inaccurate tags and warrantless AfD's, my opinion is that your motives are suspect. The fact is that the article includes references asserting notability, so there is no reason for an AfD in this instance. While some of your AfD's and tags make sense, many of them do not. This is one that falls into the latter category. This deletion doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of finding a consensus, and that's clear on the discussion page of the article. Rray 04:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep After reviewing User:Gavin.collins' talk page, it has become evident to me that the user is not practicing good faith at all. I think an admin needs to review his "contributions" to Wikipedia and sort it out accordingly. As for the article, it is notable enough, is a published material, and the article is not written as fancruft. - Cyborg Ninja 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Without taking a stance towards the article, as I am biased, I cannot help but to be completely dismayed at Gavin Collins. How much is enough? Will you not leave the roleplaying and D&D Wikiprojects anything at all or are your systematic attempts to decimate entire categories of articles intended to depopulate them entirely? --Agamemnon2 11:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An important question. I'd be interested in hearing the answer, too. --Kizor 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above reasons. Honestly, I am tired of this. Turlo Lomon 05:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The books have received independent reviews which indicates notability. Even if it didn't, outright deletion would be a ridiculous compared to a merge, since the base setting books are a major element of the campaign setting, and would definitely warrant discussion in the Greyhawk article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Add sources and keep. Tiresome. Artw 06:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with main Greyhawk article. We don't have an article on Windows and its source code, so why have articles on games/settings and their books? Percy Snoodle 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and on a side note, I agree with the comments on User:Gavin.collins' behavior. He is not practicing good faith, but fighting a one-man war on an entire class of Wikipedia articles. --Raistlin 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly that sort of thing seems a bit fashionable at the moment. Artw 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a seperate product that has it's own set of reviews. I have a stack of them on my desk that will be added. Web Warlock 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has its problems, but verifiability/souracility isn't one of them, nor is deletion a solution. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — not really sure what is going on here, but this article is extremely notworthy being the setting created by one of the creators of D&D. no idea why it would be up for deletion. it could probably use some work but it is an important part of D&D history. shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: this article is about the books, rather than the setting itself. As an aside, being "created by one of the creators of D&D" is not necessarily a good argument, as notability is not inherited. --Pak21 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Highly notable. Clearly worth an article per WP:N and other guidelines and policies too numerous to list.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  16:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The original works on one of the longest-running settings for D&D; a major aspect of a topic that's large enough that there's a wikiproject for it. Pinball22 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Rray and Pinball22. Possible Merge per Percy, though I think a merge of this and Greyhawk Adventures et al into an article on the various printed primary Greyhawk sourcebooks would be a better idea. --Rindis 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and sourced. Highly questionable nomination. Tarc 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Bad faith nomination, bordering on a troll. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep is now eminent.  Bur nt sau ce  22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep as per everyone familiar with subject. Award winning game.  Edward321 00:26, 5 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.