Talk:Descent into the Depths of the Earth

Not notable?

I firmly believe these classic AD&D modules to be an important and deeply influential artifact of the American popular culture circa 1980, and thus have innate historical significance. Dungeons & Dragons-style games ("RPGs") played a major role in the early popularity of primitive home computer systems, such as the Commodore 64 and the Apple ][, among many others (people often got computers in order to play AD&D-derived RPG games such as Telengard, Wizardy, The Temple of Apshai, the Zork Trilogy, and countless others), and thus represent a small but never-the-less vital component in the history of the single most important technological advance since the advent of industrial production ie., the dissemination of personal computers in the home & office, the rise of the World Wide Web, and the emergence of the so-called "Information Age" generally. Early home video game systems such as the Atari 2600 featured the game "Adventure" (and others) which derived from the same AD&D-style millieu. "Adventure" was literally one of the most popular video games in human history, and also contained the very first "Easter Egg" in commercial entertainment software. The popularity of RPG-style games was particularly important in the rise of the Nintendo Entertainment System during the mid-1980s, when it briefly appeared that home video game systems (as distinct from computer systems) were a dead industry.

Furthermore, these classic AD&D modules were a big part of the larger RPG phenomenon that had an enormous influence on the popular literary genres of fantasy & science fiction, heavy metal music, popular film & television programming, etc. These primarily American and British artifacts from the time of the Jimmy Carter and early Ronald Reagan presidential administrations doubtless may seem obscure to many "baby boomers," as well as the kids of today (2007), but for Generation X, these things were huge! To suggest they aren't "notable" is frankly ludicrous. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, "ludicrous" is probably the right word, however not in the context you're using it. Thanks for the entertaining read. --Jack Merridew 11:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in maintaining this article. It's not as though its an advert, and a lot of time has been put into it. Keven seems to have provided a decent argument for notability. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Absent his providing some sort of backup for his assertions they are original research. --Jack Merridew 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have to keep to NOR in talk pages and showing notability. We should take him at his word. Notability is more of an issue for people trying to promote themselves and their businesses. Though if he could demonstrate his claims and include it in the article I think that would make it a much better one. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no real issue with a bit of OR getting floated on a talk page, however OR is quite unacceptable for establishing notability which requires reliable third party sources.--Jack Merridew 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Please explain why two reviews (White Dwarf and RPG net) and a ranking of #1 as a series in the only module review ever done (and of hundreds) doesn't meet notability? Hobit (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Worlds

We need to find out what the book actually says about the modules, because right now we really have no idea what it says about them. BOZ (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it on the net. Who added the refs? Maybe their still around (probably not). It can be bought for about 14 bucks.[1] I've never spent money to assist wiki, but I have some paypal money built up, and if I could find it cheap on ebay I'd buy it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think RJHall has a copy? BOZ (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)