Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts

Rod of Seven Parts

Fictional stick or wand that fails WP:FICT. Has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:FICT outside of the Greyhawk canon, and no primary sources to indicate if this artifact has any significance within it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major artifact in the D&D game since its first appearance in the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide (well, technically it first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry, but that's splitting hairs). Has appeared in several books since then, most notably as the subject of an eponymious boxed set/adventure book in 1996, and played a key role in the Age of Worms adventure path. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure why you created this article in the first place; when you say it is the subject of an adventure book, do you mean a game guide? Is this a prop for a game, or is it the subject of literary fiction? If it is prop created for a game, how can it be notable, even within the game? Surely player in a role-playing game would not act out being a stick? Please clarify. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess. This is yet another article you are trying to delete without having any idea at all what it is about, correct? Given your comments, it seems I'd have to give a whole lot of exposition to explain the answers I would give to your questions, and this doesn't seem like the place for that. Would you do us all a favor and do some research before sending articles for deletion? Here's a suggestion, try an open dialogue with people on each article who know something about the subject *before* starting the AFD process, so that you can better understand the signficance of each item before proceeding, so that you can at least seem like you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry if that sounds uncivil, I intend it as a bit of harsh constructive criticism. You'll encounter less hostile opposition if you display less ignorance of the subject, I think. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I necessarily agree with this nomination, but the article should be the place where the notability of the topic is fully demonstrated. In its present form it does fail to do so, at least for the readers who are not knowledgeable about D&D. I don't see any content explaining its importance (for the casual reader) in a literary series. The reader should not be required to drill down to the Adventure Path link to see what that means. Nor is the meaning or importance of the Age of Worms explained. What I do see is a lot of unexplained, campaign-specific information. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite This article would be more properly about the adventure series than the artifact itself. Unfortunately, it sort of predates the internet explosion, so finding appropriate references may be hard. At the least, however, this should be redirect to a page listing the various D&D adventure modules. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]