Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSRIC-Compatible Adventure Modules

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSRIC-Compatible Adventure Modules

[edit]
OSRIC-Compatible Adventure Modules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list compilation is not referenced to non-published sources. Creation of a 'sales catalog' (the products are not for sale, but that is the effect of having this article) from primary sources makes this an original research issue.

The authors are using Wikipedia as a primary source of documentation for their game creating specialized catalog lists. Miami33139 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I authored most of the content on this page. To date, I am not associated with any of the publishers, nor have I written any of the items listed. Also note the various publishers are unafilliated. The article is meant as a useful index for interested readers to find all OSRIC-compatible adventure modules. I believe Wikipedia is the best place for such information because the list is independent of publisher, author, and distributor bias. So, it is the ideal place for the reader to fin all published OSRIC-Compatible adventures, regardless of publisher, author, or distributor bias. I know there are a number of people interested in RPGs that use this article as a reference. I believe the article should be kept for those who want a comprehensive list of OSRIC adventures. -Terrex2112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrex2112 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems like a useful consolidated list, not much different to lists of Baldur's Gate characters that have been hosted here for years, or other computer game franchise lists of available material. M.J.Stanham (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not saying it is, just that it seems like there is a bit of a double standard at work. I am not opposed to merging the information into the general OSRIC page. M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a double standard when the lists you're comparing this too have twice as many sources on both the list and parent article, ignoring the fact that those list are on much lengthier topics than OSRIC. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but it is a double standard if the reason for deletion is that it is a list. By the same token, if the reason for deletion is that the article needs to be lengthier (and honestly, a list of Baldur's Gate characters is not a lengthier topic by any stretch of the imagination) or requires more citations or whatever, then I am sure those issues can be addressed. Perhaps a general "Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrum Games" page would fit that bill more closely, bringing together articles on OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and so on. The tendency towards sub-entries on Wikipedia is natural, but many are quite unnecessary. M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you should create a "Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrum Games" article and move those other games to it. Miami33139 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's not the reason for deletion, thus there is no double standard. For this list to survive, it doesn't just need sources, it needs second and third party sources. At the moment, all the sources listed are first part and, as nom points out, reads like a catalog. At first thought, a list of Dungeon & Dragons Simulacrum etc seems like it would be long and sprawling, but I'm not against the attempt. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, as I say, I am sure the criteria can be met, once what they are is understood. I am fairly certain that the creation of pages listing material is for the convenience of organising information and not intended as a catalogue, since that function is met in many other places. I would not imagine that a Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums page would be any more sprawling than the Dungeons & Dragons page it would be modelled on, but I suppose we will never know until we give it a go.M.J.Stanham (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certain elements of the page could certainly be adopted to the OSRIC page. So long as that page did not become a directory itself (my main concern). I'm not opposed to merging some information in there. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OSRIC-Compatible_Adventure_Modules&oldid=1138176680"