Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Of Frost

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - merged and redirected

Ray Of Frost

Just a single spell from Dungeons and Dragons. Indrian 02:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Abracadabra, article be gone. DCEdwards1966 04:32, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect. Any useful data can be merged into Spells of Dungeons & Dragons#Specific_spells Sixpence 04:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is such a good idea. Maybe for iconic spells like magic missile that would work, but there are hundreds of D&D spells, maybe even thousands. In second edition, they filled eight books with wizard and priest spells in a sort of encyclopedia of spells. If we encourage merging this information into a parent article, said article will get bloated and be split into separate articles, and we are back at square one. Indrian 05:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. I hope someone isn't planning to do articles on every single D&D spell...has anyone checked to see if this is one of a series? 23skidoo 05:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Spell has no effect! Reason: Spell has moved to another location. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redir --fvw* 07:27, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I'm going to violate my policy for not voting on notability here, because I think I have a strong case. Are we going to put separate articles in for every D&D spell ever created, in whatever campaign/expansion set/computer RPG? That's just not reasonable. Why not Melf's Minute Meteors or Mordenkainen's Sword or Mass Invisibility or Monster Summoning III or Tasha's Hideous Derisive Laughter, for that matter? I'll tell you why: because nobody looks these up in an encyclopedia. That's for two reasons: first, actual descriptions of these spells are copyrighted in nice books D&D players generally own, and second, if you are a D&D player, you know where to get this information. Wikipedia isn't it. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of facts, and that's what a complete spell list would be.
  Now, Ray Of Frost is nice because it describes how the spell is actually used within the game, as opposed to a dry description of what it is, so the info should stay (albeit not in a separate article). A few very notable spells like Magic Missile and Fireball should also be included somewhere, but that's it. No complete list, no chewing out descriptions, just the spells that are notable within D&D for some reason. (Incidentally, Fireball neads cleanup. Yeah, yeah, I know: {{sofixit}}. I'll put it one of my lists somewhere.) JRM 09:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worthy of wikipedia entry. --Bucephalus 11:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought I recalled a decision that D&D spells were not encyclopedic. In any case, I don't think it's wikipedia's place to create an online Player's Handbook, which is basically what we're doing if we include information on all the D&D spells, in one article or many. Doing so would additionally be treading very close to copyright infringement. We're not a game guide. -R. fiend 18:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And are we seriously going to have a redirect for every single Dungeons and Dragons spell? -- Walt Pohl 18:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge but not redirect. If Spells of Dungeons & Dragons#Specific_spells didn't exist, I'd vote for a Delete. I have objections over the Spells page, and a lot of those spell descriptions are borderline copyvios of the concise spell descriptions listed in the various game manuals and players handbooks that feature those spells. --Deathphoenix 21:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge but NOT redirect. Same as above, redirecting these things would be a mess. According to the Talk:Spells of Dungeons & Dragons, the list was created in an attempt to control the proliferation of individual spell articles. Shard 21:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A previous version (I believe capitalized as Ray of Frost) was nominated for deletion in June 2004. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ray Of Frost (June 2004) for that discussion. As I recall, the decision was "Keep as redirect" which Pcb21 carried out. On 25 August, Netoholic deleted the redirect without explanation. While minor, the topic of this article is no worse than other trivia which we routinely vote to keep. 1) Redirects are cheap. 2) For some reason, the article about this particular spell has been independently created twice now. A redirect might keep us from having to argue about this a third time. Keep as redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since my name was brought up as an accusation, I must point out that I am not an admin, and so could not have deleted that redirect. I'll thank you to be accurate in the future. -- Netoholic @ 01:58, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • It was not intended as an accusation - merely a fact from the Deletion Log. Looking into it more carefully, I misread the log. Apparently, you changed the redirect from Dungeons & Dragons spells to Spells of Dungeons & Dragons on 25 Aug. For some reason, the Deletion Log does not show who actually deleted the page or when it was deleted. I incorrectly assumed that the last edit shown was the deletion. I apologize. Rossami (talk) 15:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The info is already contained in the main spells article. Ben Standeven 07:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Additional comment: we can make it a redirect instead, or as well. Ben Standeven 22:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 01:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.