Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Fantasy RPG

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Fantasy RPG

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reference 1 is forum. Reference 2-4 are release announcement, not RS. Reference 5 is not about this subject. Reference 6-10 are blog.

Article was written in one single edit by SPA account.

This article is unreferenced to Wikipedia standard, written by SPA. It is not notable. It should be deleted. Miami33139 (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it is part of the List of RPG's article, why not just wait for someone to clean in up rather than deleting it? If deleted, wouldn't that also mean deleting it from that list, which would then mean that the list is less complete? Or, if the article is deleted, can it still be kept in the list as a "red link", or is that a no-no? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to those questions depends on the inclusion criteria set up by the editors of that list. Miami33139 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "inclusion criteria" mean? It sounds like such editors "own" the page. I mean, if it's a simple list of RPGs, what does the amount of red links have to do with it? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list is composed of things that meet some criteria. That criteria needs to be discriminate and objective. The list of RPGs is quite long, and it looks like the maintainers do not allow many entries that do not have a Wikipedia article. This prevents obvious problems including a game that a bunch of nerds make in basement one night, publish on internet, and then add to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists Miami33139 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but Universe (by SPI) could hardly fit that "nerd" category, which is why, I suppose, it irritated me. Still, rather than fighting it, I was thinking of creating my first article by using Universe as practice. I just have to dig it out of some box that is currently in in my attic.

At any rate, thanks for the info. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this system is notable; the article needs to be expanded. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base your reasoning that this is notable by showing multiple mentions of significant length in independent reliable sources, and not WP:ILIKEIT. Miami33139 (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too think it is notable and that the article simply needs an expansion. However, I do think that there should be some kind of time limit placed on an expansion, so that if no one expands it, then it should be deleted (as an article, and not from the list). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have yet to see any articles from reliable sources that are largely about the game and that do not mention it in passing. All the refs currently in the article are unreliable. Goodvac (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs more discussion. The two keep !votes do not give policy reasons and the single delete !vote at the last minute is the first one to give a policy based argument since the AfD nomination therefore I have relisted this to generate more discussion. Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources are used in the article, no assertion of notability is to be seen. Discard both "keeps" above, as they are little more than WP:ITSNOTABLE with zero supporting proof or support. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all well and good to close your eyes and wish upon a star that something is notable, but in an AFD we need some semblance of backing evidence, particularly extensive coverage by reliable sources. Frankly, pretty much everything in the article, particularly the fact that they had to publish it through lulu.com, strongly suggests non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is sourced, it just needs a bit of work, but not deletion. Web Warlock (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't really sourced. It has referenced URLs, but none of them are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. The nominator explains this in the very beginning of the nomination. Did you even bother to read what you're responding to? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nothing resembling the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that we need to establish notability. Here is a summary of what the sources in the article are like:

Online forum.
Game's home page.
Game's home page.
Game's home page, and identical to #3
Doesn't mention the subject
"Hey all, I made this game called Basic Fantasy RPG. Come check it out!"
Blog.
Blog.
Online forum.
Blog.

Take away the unreliable sources, the one that doesn't mention the subject, and the ones that are just the creator of the game spruiking his own product, and there's nothing left. Reyk _YO! 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 5 does mention the precursor to this game and would seem to be reliable. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creator of both games, in source 6, refers to them as "completely different game[s]", so to claim that one derives notability from the other is a bit of a stretch. Reyk _YO! 19:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources presented are not reliable and I was not able to find any that were. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge [1] would seem to be a reliable source, which would appear to give us one, plus perhaps the #5 source listed above... I'd prefer a creation of an article on retro clones (rather than a redirect) with this being a section... Hobit (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged, the right target is likely Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums. Hobit (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that article does appear to be correct in content, I've never heard that phrase used outside of Wikipedia, and the term "retroclone" currently redirects to a subsection of "Open Gaming". Resistor (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums, and possibly redirect Retroclone there as well. Resistor (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Most of the articles on retro-clones are not very well developed yet, but I believe that they are notable enough to merit a collective article, if not individual ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorblek (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 August 2010 (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.