Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Talents (role-playing game)

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 keep. Per WP:RS added by BOZ and Guinness323. The consensus is now also clear to keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Talents (role-playing game)

[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)

Company article unsourced to anything other than company's own website. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com, fails to locate WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this publication was discussed in Appelcline's Designers & Dragons (reliable source per RSN)and received many, many RS reviews which meet NBOOK and the GNG. AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and this looks like the vindictive Hillfolk AfD all over again. Perhaps this admin was given his tools too soon.
Also, NCORP does not apply. Chetsford, you can tell the difference between a company and a publication, can't you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"received many, many RS reviews" Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's Gizmodo and here's GMS Magazine. Sometimes Google works as advertised. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the Gizmodo link. "Gmsmagazine.com" is not RS. Due to insufficient RS - demonstrated by article sourced a single reference (Gizmodo) - WP:SIGCOV is not demonstrated and the article should be deleted for failing the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - GMS certainly is a RS, but if you don't like that, Wild Talents is discussed at length in Designers & Dragons (Vol. 4, pp. 250-2). You really ought to withdraw this nom, to protect your record. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - A single source is insufficient to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Creative accounting, but Gizmodo and Applecline are two distinct SOGCOV RS. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Gizmodo is a repost of a personal blog "Robot Viking" and is not RS. "Designers & Dragons" is not RS. I seem to have erred in saying a single source, as we currently have no sources. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps your memory is not what it once was, but here is the discussion that you stated, that concluded that Applecline is reliable. Are you funning us, perhaps?
        And Gizmodo certainly offers the necessary degree of editorial oversight to make the review reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, fails WP:GNG - needs another source or two. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been provided here, per policy this is what matters. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the gizmodo source possibly qualifies, but it was originally printed on a personal blog, so we really need two more good sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gizmodo review is an entirely reliable source in this context, and why are you ignoring the three-page discussion in Designers & Dragons, found to be a reliable source at RSN? Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Robot Viking" (republished on Gizmodo) is not RS. Designers & Dragons was discovered to be "generally reliable" (except for BLPs or controversial statements) on RSN, which is a different question as to whether or not it contributes to notability. A source may be RS but mention of a person or thing in that source does not contribute to its notability. The minutes of the Houston City Council are probably reliable for the transactions of the Houston City Council; that does not assign notability to any person, place, or thing read into the minutes. Similarly, we consider many trade journals (e.g. Food Processing & Manufacturing, Packaging Digest, etc.) to be RS, but do not generally consider them to contribute to the notability of the companies they cover. Since "Designers & Dragons" - in its umpteen volumes - covers literally just about every conceivable game ever published it follows that there is no assignment of notability for merely appearing in it, though it might be a RS for facts about those games. Chetsford (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Thanks for setting out so clearly the difference between your own thinking and the WP:GNG - the latter does not recognize a class of independent sources that are reliable but do not contribute to notability because they are too comprehensive. Your argument is equivalent to arguing that a dead tree Britannica does not contribute to notability because it is too detailed.
      - By the way, closers are bound by policy to ignore arguments, such as the one you are currently making, that are unsupported by - and in fact conflict with - key WP policies. Your comparison of the major, four volume, reference work on RPGs to the minutes of a mid-sized municipal government suggest that you might not be clear what an independent, reliable source is. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no conflict in Chetsford's analysis. Articles such as these have a difficult time being referenced to reliable independent sources. Your analysis here is simply a straw man, as a directory which indiscriminately discusses a source does not necessarily contribute to notability, and even if it did we're still short of sources to keep this one. I am, however, happy to review any new sources you provide and would be willing to switch my !vote if better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, the Appelcline text is not a "directory" and is by no means indiscriminate; it is a nonfiction text in chapter and paragraph form that treats only important RPG works by each designer and publisher. The discussion of Wild Talents is three dead-tree book pages long, and I would be happy to send you the text off-wiki (which is legit for me to do given the copyright regime where I live) but of course I cannot post it here. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"is by no means indiscriminate" - To be clear, across its four volumes it is 1600 pages and, according to its indices, address more than 3,000 games in those 1600 pages, many of which are mentioned in no other RS known to man. Applecline is overt in saying this is a "comprehensive" history of all games. While it, as established by RSN, is RS for non-BLPs, it has the characteristics of a directory and - though perhaps factual - mere inclusion in this catalog doesn't contribute to notability. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I and others have noted elsewhere, Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source. It is a historical narrative of the companies, designers, and games it discussed and has nine of the characteristics of a directory. There are many games and game products it does not discuss in its four volumes, so your accusations here are nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. I do not believe that inclusion in a single catalogue qualifies as significant coverage. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you are repeating Fake news from Chetsford. Designers & Dragons is a long-form text of cultural history, not a "catalogue". Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the RS Applecline citation, this was nominated for role-playing Game of the Year at the 2010 ENnies. (It might have won if it hadn't been published the same year as Pathfinder). These two sources strongly suggest notability.Guinness323 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment With the award nomination and two RS citations (Applecline and Pyramid review) this would seem to meet notability requirements. Guinness323 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimlartial and Guinness323. Sufficient reliable sources demonstrate notability as is, even before more are added to the article. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article meet WP:N. I'm not sure why this is here. Designers and Dragons as well as Pyramid are reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:THREE met between Gizmodo, Designers & Dragons and Pyramid. feminist (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2020 (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.