Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (4th nomination)

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 to The Rod of Seven Parts. Seems like a sensible compromise. Sandstein 06:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts

[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)

No evidence this fictional item passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT and extreme level fancruft. While the prior AfD found, finally, a single non-primary source that mentions it ([1]) the reference is in passing. The Rod of SEVEN Parts in the form of magical artifacts is mentioned there briefly, the chapter is entitled The Rod of MANY Parts, discusses other magical artifacts (Rod of EIGHT Parts, etc.). Furthermore, the Rod of Seven Parts as discussed there does not refer to a magical artifact but to a storytelling principle, so the article as written should get TNTed anyway since it if anything is notable, it is not a random DnD magical treasure, but said storytelling principle (however, I don't think this said principle can be called notable with one source, and I don't see it discussed anywhere else). Nothing to merge anywhere. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT and TNT at best. Kacper IV (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reading those old discussions shows how much the Wikipedia has evolved, I can't believe that at one time "keep because so-and-so is a sore loser" was not challenged. If one cannot source fictional elements to something outside of the sphere in which it was created, e.g. sourcebooks, handbooks, Dragon Magazine, etc... then it does not belong here. ValarianB (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous nomination. This is not notable in any sense of the word. There have never been any good sources actually presented. This is simply one of those articles where a bunch of people pile on for it to become an inclusionist vs deletionist fight for some unfathomable reason. TTN (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Outside of primary sources, references to the Rod are fairly passing, mostly being relegated to "Top Ten" style lists that don't do much more than describe plot details about what it is. The source mentioned above, found in the prior AFD, is, as the nom said, not really about the fictional object itself. And, regardless, it seems to be the only real source that could really be considered a reliable, secondary source giving more than passing coverage on it which, alone, is not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. It could potentially be used as a Redirect target to such things like The Rod of Seven Parts (one of the adventures that it was the centerpiece of), but that seems to be about it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rod of Seven Parts as non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AFD. Failing that, merge any useful data and Redirect to The Rod of Seven Parts as above. (I'd argue strict keep, but I have to admit I don't see the point of having two separate articles, one ostensibly about the macguffin in the other.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG, zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - It seems a source mentioned in the previous AFD was lost in the shuffle. Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives is a major piece of coverage in a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. Pages 87–89 in that source discuss the object in detail, not just descriptively, but with analysis, and quotes from multiple game developers who talk about how the item inspired their own game design choices. There's also Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Experience of Imagined Worlds, which isn't quite as big, but still almost two pages (130–131) that do some analysis of the topic. Those two combine to create enough real-world notability to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits

The first source appears to be about a general gaming concept that isn't inherently linked to the item and the module more than the item itself. The second source is pretty trivial. I don't see how either makes for a stand-alone topic. TTN (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of the first source, as I think it is about the item itself: "The rod of many parts is heavily grounded in the history of RPGs, originating in a 1982 pen-and-paper module for Dungeons and Dragons...". It then goes on to talk specifically about assembling the rod, mentioning the seven Latin words on each piece, which is a direct reference to the D&D item as the inspiration for the general gaming concept. I hope others will examine the source and judge for themselves. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly mention and discuss this source in my OP post above, and the issue is it is not about this item. It discusses a literary concept, and not a particular magical item. "The rod of many parts" =/= "Rod of Seven Parts". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote further to make my point cleaer. I've added bolding:

The rod of many parts is heavily grounded in the history of RPGs, originating in a 1982 pen-and-paper module for Dungeons and Dragons numbered "R7" and entitled "Dwarven" Quest for the Rod of Seven Parts. In this scenario, adventurers seek out the seven fragments of a magical staff called the Rod of Law. Each of these sections has its own magical properties that combine when the staff is reassembled to provide the strength to vanquish the Queen of Chaos. Each part of the Rod of Seven is named after one word of a Latin sentence, with each section reading respectively "Ruat," "Coelum," "Fiat," "Justitia," "Ecce," "Lex," and "Rex". This phrase translates to "Though Chaos Reign, Let Justice Be Done. Behold! Law is King" (boxed set, insert).

The text is specifically talking about the Rod of Seven Parts as the originator of the concept. And later on:

Hence, the meaning of the quest is emergent, acquired through the complex manipulations required to find all parts of the staff. As the scenario book explains, "The quest for the Rod of Seven Parts begins when the player characters embark on a search for the first piece...."

And finally, in the first sentence of the next paragraph:

The "rod of seven parts" principle carries forward from the 1982 module...

I don't see how it could be any more explicitly referring to the item itself, and the game design concept it embodies and, more crucially, essentially birthed. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this goes to show that the Ro7P is mentioned in this context in passing (GNG requires in-depth analysis). The discussed concept is different (but also not notable, I looked for sources for it too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an item that has been in D&D canon for over 40 years and has external sourcing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, "being in canon of a ficitonverse for few decades" has ZERO connection to anything related to GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good arguments in the previous AfD it is vexatious to renominate over and over. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given extensive discussion I'm not sure a relist will make consensus clearer (as opposed to the current no consensus I see) but since there has been a move towards keep since Torchiest's analysis let's see if we can find consensus and avoid a possible 5th nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Rod of Seven Parts. Closely linked concepts, very close name match. This doesn't need two stand-alone articles, and the real-world concept (RPG accessory) has more weight than the fictional concept (artefact). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG, and the redirect target also fails GNG and WP:NBOOK currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to merge with The Rod of Seven Parts. Somehow I didn't notice there were two separate articles for the item itself an a gaming book about it. I think merging them makes sense both in terms of strengthening their combined notability and in removing confusion. There's no clear reason why the artifact page wouldn't have the definite article The in the title anyway. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 21:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as the nom). Good merge target found, I prefer merge as well right now. The accessory is notable per NBOOK and can contain some info about the fictional gadget/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 11 December 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.