Now, it might be possible to get the article back, but before everyone "grabs their pitchforks" I have to say that there were problems with the article before it was deleted.
I did a minor edit on the Savage Coast artcle a while ago (fixing a dead link), but the article was never really done very well. It needed to have more stuff added. And more importantly it needed to have citations to reliable secondary sources. Neither of these things happened and the article, like a lot of D&D articles, got targeted for deletion. (For the Savage Coast article, the challange was under "notability" rules, but the article was also tagged for having bad citations.)
If you actually check the original text you will see that it breaks a number of Wikipedia "rules" and it is really this rulebreaks, rather than the subject matter, that have been used to argue the deltionist case. I've seen these deletionists at work elsewhere and challanges against badly citated work are often quickly backed up with a notability challange and then a deletion challange. But on Wikipedia, even deletion isn't the end. Things can be undeleted (by an admin if necessary). But to get them deleted you need to use your debate-fu and disarm the reasons used to kill an article.
So while the article has been deleted, if people are interested, we can actually fix these problems, create a better article and reverse the change into a redirect page. But as someone who doesn't really know much about Savage Coast (and is especially ignorant about background things like who was working for TSR when X, Y and Z were published) this isn't something that I can do.
So it is up to you lot. Do you want to fix up the Mystara articles on Wikipedia or allow the deletionists to rip them apart one by one? I'm not interested in an edit war (because the delitionists will claim that lack of real improvements means that the articles are not going to be fixed), but if someone out there wants to do some research (which you may already have done) and get the facts straight, I'll help try to get this article back online.
Here is the last version of Wikipedia's Savage Coast page before it got turned into a redirect page. For your convinience I'll copy over the meat of the article:
Here are the main problems with the article:Wikipedia wrote:The Savage Coast is part of the Mystara Campaign Setting for Dungeons & Dragons and was later spun-off into a campaign setting for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition). The area is a 2,000 mile long frontier coastline about 2,000 miles to the west of the Known World of Mystara. The Savage Coast is an area under the Red Curse, which eventually kills its inhabitants by mutating them unless the metal cinnabryl is worn in contact with the body.
The first published information on the area was the module X9 The Savage Coast for Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set. The region was later expanded in Dungeon magazine issues 6 and 7 (1987) with the adventure "Tortles of the Purple Sage".
Two series in Dragon Magazine, "The Princess Ark" and the "Known World Grimoire", described the Savage Coast in more detail. These articles were partially reprinted in the D&D game accessory Champions of Mystara (1993)
In 1994 campaign setting for the area was published as a boxed set entitled Red Steel, an expansion Savage Baronies was released the next year. These supplements were for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition), all the previous material had been for the non "Advanced" version of D&D.
In 1996 the setting was revised and re-released under the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Odyssey line as three fully online products. This range included the base Savage Coast Campaign Book by Tim Beach and Bruce Heard, a supplement Savage Coast: Orc's Head and a Monstrous Compendium Appendix.
The Savage Coast Campaign Book
Previous Edition Dungeons & Dragons Downloads (Free TSR download from Wizards of the Coast. Scroll down the page to find the Savage Coast Campaign Setting)
Red Steel and The Savage Coast at TSR Archive.
No citations: If you are writing something for a game, citations are not important. In fact you can freely mix in canon and fanon. But Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia - not a freely editable scrapbook (like some other wikis are). That means that anyone using a page, needs to be able to check all the facts on that page.
It isn't enough to list a number of articles at the bottom of the page. You also need to link to those citations in the text of the article. For example the Savage Coast article makes this claim: "In 1996 the setting was revised and re-released under the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Odyssey line as three fully online products. This range included the base Savage Coast Campaign Book by Tim Beach and Bruce Heard, a supplement Savage Coast: Orc's Head and a Monstrous Compendium Appendix." That might be true and it might not be true. So to "back up" the claim, we need a "reliable" webpage that has all of that information on it. And if one reliable page doesn't have all the information about the Odyssey line, then the claim needs two or three citations.
The basic principle is that Wikipedia can not be used for "original research" (i.e. writing your own articles) and that means that you need to find other websites, books magazines or other "reliable" publications that mention every single one of these facts.
Now, in the past, people have tried using pretty much anything as a source that can be used for citations, but the delitionists have been trying to challange the accuracy of these websites. (Basically if the deletionists can say that a Mystara fan site isn't well written they can then call for Wikipedians to "ignore it" and articles that do have citations end up not having "reliable citations".)
Now I don't know about you, but I just don't have time to mess about endlessly defending articles. So if you want my help getting this article back online, I suggest we first obtain a varied list of watertight sources that are just too good to be challanged. (I would say that places like Paizo and RPGNow would have download pages for most if not all of the products. Hopefully they would contain many of the important facts.)
As the official Mystara website, Vaults of Pandius would be an obvious source for "reliable information", but I know that with fanon stuff being up there, any page used for a citation is going to need to have its own citations (or at least a list of sources) to make it look like reliable research. But there might be some stuff that is missing. If anyone is sitting on a "history of the Savage Coast" article, please get it up onto VoP ASAP. And if there is an article already up there, that isn't quite accurate, please get it fixed ASAP.
Fiction: Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia about RPGs or fiction and this is where the deletionisits really try to undermine articles. So real world context is very useful. Any intereviews with the game authors, artists or pretty much anyone else connected with Savage Coast (or Red Steel) would be useful. Things like the real world inspiration for the inclusion of red steel would show how the game fits in with real culture.
Stub: Just as now, we have a small number of well meaning deletionists, who think it is their job to remove all fiction from Wikipedia, we used to have a small number of well meaning RPG fans who created a ton of stubs (short articles) and then didn't return to expand them. One of the main reason that the Savage Coast article was targeted was that it looked to be neglected. (In fact, this article was left for 9 months after being tagged, before the content was zapped and it was turned into a redirect.) If this article is going to come back, it needs to say more about Savage Coast than the above article. In fact, it should really say everything that a non-Mystara fan could possibly want to know about Savage Coast.
Inline links: There is one link embedded into the main text (to a Champions of Mystara review by Jacob Skytte). That could be turned into a more standard citation. (I'm no wiki-expert, but for a sligthly better idea of how citations could work check out my "crystal sphere" article at Spelljammer Wiki. Now SJ Wiki has a different editing style to Wikipedia, so don't copy that style, but you can see how citations lead to information about publications. If people are actually interested in fixing this, I'll try to find examples of good articles on Wikipedia.)
Neutral point of view: This article doesn't actually seem to have point of view problems, but with Mystara having different editions, anyone who expands on this encyclopedic information needs to do present the information without bias (i.e. you can't say anything like "2nd edition Mystara is awful", as that is just a personal opinion).
So, by now, you should know what is wrong. Now it is up to you. You need to ask yourself this question: Is Savage Coast important enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia?
If your answer is yes, then I hope you will agree that it should be a good quality article, that follows Wikipedia style and has reliable "secondary sources" where people can check facts and learn more.