Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all d20 sourcebooks

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 delete. If the article creator wants develop this article further and wants to userfy this article he/she is welcome to leave me a message on my talk page to request for userfication. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of all d20 sourcebooks

Unformatted listcruft with almost no context. In the wrong place - should be in the d20 NPC Wiki. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a fresh article which is still work-in-progress. We need to hear the authors' plans for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as a work in progress that has escaped into the wild. I have no objection to such an article as we have similar bibliographical lists for other publishers and d20 is notable through the Dungeons & Dragons/Wizards of the Coast connection. 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he said - Yeah, this would seem to be something that should be on some guy's Sandbox, assuming he knows it exists. Just move it there would be the best bet, it's obviously a work in progress. Howa0082 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but userfy - 23skidoo hits the nail right on the head. There is nothing wrong with the topic; other similar and much less notable lists exist. The problem is that this is clearly a work in progress and hasn't been formatted correctly yet. Typically such things are kept in sandboxes. Please note, however, that this is the work of a newbie contributor, who probably doesn't know about user sandboxes and such. He has a lot of material in here and is trying to organize it. This page should be moved to a user page, and some explanation left for the creator. Please don't bite the the newbies. Freederick (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the title of the article says "all"; that's an invitation to linkfarm. Even if this were a list of notable and near-notable books (as I believe most of the other list of.. articles are) the d20 wiki is a far better place to put it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - look at the source; it is indented with tab characters. This text came from somewhere as a piece and had the "work in progress" bits tacked on to the top and bottom. This is someone throwing sand in the gears and is probably using a copyvio to do it. --Jack Merridew 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a lot that is wrong with this article despite it being a list and non-encyclopedic (though I seriously doubt that we can bring in COPYVIO since you can't copyright a list of products), there are several factual errors in the list itself. I think this very, very new user has positive intentions, they just lack the knowledge at this point of what to do. Web Warlock (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we upgrade this to Speedy Delete? the Editor in question has not made anyother edits to any articles. Web Warlock (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - keeping a list like this would be like keeping a list of all poems made by school children in the US. the size of the list would be unmanageable, as well as i think... there is something about WP is not a place for lists? maybe a list under each companies own articles of thier d20 books would be better, but a single list for just everything that has the d20 logo slapped onto it is kind of silly sounding. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:53, 11 January 2008 (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.