Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set

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 keep. No consensus to delete other than nom. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor aspect of a single role-playing game. Not an individually notable article, and the reception section is incredibly lengthy just copy pasting the sources in question. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reception section contains reviews from independent reliable sources, which I believe qualifies it to meet the WP:GNG. If the section is too long, it can be trimmed, AFD is not cleanup. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is WP:SYNTH. The sources are not about the Starter Set as a whole, but reviews of individual Starter Sets of different kinds. However, many non-notable Starter Sets merged together still doesn't make a Voltron article that is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we have sources that give non-trivial coverage to the idea of starter sets over the last 40 years we can find the idea of starter sets notable. However, as I mention below, if only the idea is notable, then I don't think D&D has a monopoly on it and this article should cover the whole range of starter sets in roleplaying games. Rockphed (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article went through WP:AfC & there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG (such as Shannon Appelcline, Dragon magazine, Pyramid magazine, Polygon, io9 & Paste Magazine, etc). This is similar to the Player's Handbook or any other sourcebook that is reissued multiple times for each edition where you group all of the editions together. Per BOZ, if any quote is too long then improvements can always be made. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Magazine? Which has mostly been owned and operated by the owners of the D&D brand? I am fairly certain that it is hard to have it be independent of the subject at hand. Rockphed (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response below. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough sources to establish notability but the quotes from the reviews are far too long up to the point that they might raise copyright questions. Haukur (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, this article seems well written and sourced (I didn't read the whole thing or actually look at the specific cited sources, I skimmed the article and looked at the source list at the bottom of the page). On the other hand, it isn't about a specific starter set, but rather about D&D starter sets in general. I think that deleting this article is the wrong response to its failings. If, after combing through the sources we find that there are not multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources about any one version(and we determine that there are unlikely to be more), we might move this article and its content to Starter Set (which might instead end up being a disambiguation with the article ending up on Starter Set (Roleplaying game supplement). I think that we would need to have at least one of the specific supplements be able to meet WP:GNG by itself before we can have an article about starter sets in D&D specifically. Alternatively, if each version passes WP:GNG, then we can use WP:SNOWFLAKE and make a list of starter sets with individual articles about ones that have received more press. Rockphed (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification When I created this article, I modeled it on the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual (less on the Dungeon Master's Guide because it's mostly one edition of the DMG per edition of D&D). The Starter Set often acts as point of introduction for Dungeons & Dragons and works in conjunction with the core three rulebooks. So if we look at the Player's Handbook, in 4E D&D section there are three versions of the Player's Handbook published over the course of 4E D&D. If we look at the Monster Manual, there is similar amount of multiple versions of the MM published over the course of an individual game edition that then gets restarted with the next edition of the game. Some individual books do have their own articles but are also included in the larger roundup article that shows how a title changes & evolves over the course of D&D's history. The intent of this article is to show the same evolution of Starter Sets specfically for D&D. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of WP:GNG, all three of the 5E D&D Starter Sets meet that quite easily (Polygon reviewed all three to start with & there are 3 plus other sources per Starter Set). I was originally going to make three separate articles (one for each 5E Start Set), but then there was an ongoing discussion across a few rpg AfDs about to what extent Wikipedia needs individual RPG product/supplement/book articles versus articles that group together all of one type of RPG supplement for a specific game (this appears to be mostly a D&D argument) so I went this direction instead. For some of the older, pre-internet coverage, editions, there are the game review paper magazines (Pyramid magazine. But it also includes Dragon reviews which are used all over the place for both TSR products and non-TSR products for notability) and Appelcline's book but there are not as many surviving, verifiable sources as there are for the post-2010 products. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that although the article talks about various starter sets for the game, the starter kits in general meets GNG and deleting the article is a wrong response. Taewangkorea (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass for WP:GNG - why is this up for deletion?Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2019 (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.