Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CthulhuTech
- CthulhuTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Roleplaying game with no assertion of notability, the company that created it is a redlink. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, don't delete, this is a game that is being played and has several books out in print. If your guidelines for inclusion are so strict then people will stop contributing to wikipedia. CthulhuTech is notable because it has some gorgeous artwork and illustration (look at the official website for examples). Compare the article for Dark Heresy, which also has a nice book that few people play. The Wildfire link is red because I will be writing that article shortly. The publisher (Catalyst) has a full page already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are talking here about the quality of the game, not its notability. Let me put it this way: quality does ensure that someday this game will be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but you are not showing that it's there yet. See WP:SCRABBLE for an example of what I mean. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? When did being famous become the criteria for articles in wikipedia? Notability is a very slippery term, even from your own guidelines, and I see it being applied unfairly to remove things you don't like. Exactly what criteria would CthulhuTech need to meet in order to qualify for notability? Please be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to look at WP:TOYS#Video games. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a videogame, so you're presenting a non-sequitur, and have yet to present specific, valid criteria for notability.
- You may want to look at WP:TOYS#Video games. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? When did being famous become the criteria for articles in wikipedia? Notability is a very slippery term, even from your own guidelines, and I see it being applied unfairly to remove things you don't like. Exactly what criteria would CthulhuTech need to meet in order to qualify for notability? Please be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are talking here about the quality of the game, not its notability. Let me put it this way: quality does ensure that someday this game will be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but you are not showing that it's there yet. See WP:SCRABBLE for an example of what I mean. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Either Delete or Redirect to Catalyst. Don't see why it can't be mentioned on the publisher's page, but at the moment, no notability asserted. Krypter, the rules have been like this for years and people are still contributing to Wikipedia. Notability is not a slippery term, it is clearly defined here. Have a look at the deletion log to see how frequently articles are deleted for failing to assert notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Notability- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Chtulutech satisies this criteria, so I fail to see the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- If CthulhuTech has received significant coverage in reliable sources, you will need to state what they are. I've had a quick search on Google, and I can only find coverage on other self-published websites. You might want to read the footnote for reliable sources, which reads: " Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." Websites generally don't count in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Websites don't count? So I guess wikipedia could never source itself then, eh? CthulhuTech has been peer-reviewed and discussed many times on rpg.net, probably the most active RPG community on the net. Since there are no radio/tv/journals for roleplaying games, I suppose you'd have to remove the entire roleplaying category from wikipedia since none of them would be able to satisfy this mythical notability criteria. It's unbelievable that you would allow rpg entries for countless other games while denying this one. It smacks of bias.
- If CthulhuTech has received significant coverage in reliable sources, you will need to state what they are. I've had a quick search on Google, and I can only find coverage on other self-published websites. You might want to read the footnote for reliable sources, which reads: " Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." Websites generally don't count in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Notability- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Chtulutech satisies this criteria, so I fail to see the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect given the cogent argument of BlanchardB and Chris Neville-Smith. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have yet to see any cogent arguments for deleting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete but recreate when "it has some gorgeous artwork" is an inclusion criterion. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)