Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonsfoot

Dragonsfoot

Lacking any "significant coverage by independent sources" as required by WP:NOTE Google news archives search turns up nothing Corpx 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. What sources are present are insufficient to establish notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable sources is a concern here for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it seems to assert some notability, but I agree that the main editors to the article should add additional reliable sources and perhaps divide the article into sections with headings. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think articles should be kept in hope that somebody someday might add these citations. That would defeat the whole point of WP:NOTE. I looked around to find some notability and came up empty handed and if you can find some, I'll gladly consider my position. Corpx 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good chunk of the content is unnecessary and unencyclopaedic, but as communities of first edition D&D players go, this one is notable. Capmango 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in a Google News Archive search. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though not as popular as some of the 3E+ communities, this one does seem rather well-known among 1E players. In addition, the rather high-profile presence of a number of 1E professionals, such as Gary Gygax, Frank Mentzer, Jim Ward, Rob Kuntz, and Len Lakofa certainly lend the subject an amount of notability. I would suggest improving the article, however.--Robbstrd 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think notability can be inherited to actions done by notable people. I think this article still fails WP:NOTE for lack of "significant coverage by independent sources" Corpx 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you are misreading WP:NOTE. It does not say that a subject without significant coverage in independent sources lacks notability. It only asserts the converse: Notability can be assumed if independent coverage exists. If it does not exist, then we must look to other means to determine notability. A D&D web site that includes regular posts by Gary Gygax himself is notable because Gary invented the game. Capmango 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that just because Gary Gygax posts there that it is notable. If a football coach or a player posts on a fan forum, I dont think it would give it notability. I think this also fails WP:WEB which is supposed to be a better guideline on websites. Corpx 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I implied that Gary Gygax could bestow notability by his mere presence. I meant that this is one factor to take into consideration. Capmango 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe analogy that he is a football coach or player is not convincing - He created the game - Therefore it is notable that he posts on the boards of Dragonsfoot - I do question its entry, in that it should be a sub note in the main D&D section to show original AD&D is still a viable alternative to the newer dumbed down versions 86.130.66.5 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)--Tatterdemalion]] 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]