Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventurers Guild

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 now that reasonable sources have been dug up, needs cleanup though. Neil (►) 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurers Guild

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: article about a game that does not assert its notability or importance through reliable sources. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this article would relate to the game's existence for over 15 years at the present date. During that time, the game has had numerous setbacks through real-life problems of the creator, but has continued to expand and keep the player base interested. It has also successfully evolved from the a Play-by-Mail game to a PBEM which shows the possibilities of other games evolving to to new formats and continuing to survive. Obviously, I am against the deletion of this article. Arumoro 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid. I am for deleting the article if it remains unsourced, keep it otherwise. Rationale: if reliable sources may be provided then the information is true and the subject may be considered notable because of its 15 years and its coverage by third-party sources. Rjgodoy 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds essentially like a long running role-playing campaign. Unless people other than the players are involved enough in it to generate reliable third-party commentary, it would appear to fail both notability and verifiability. The length of the campaign is not really an issue; I have D&D characters I have played intermittently, through many variations in the rules, for more than 20 years. Don't tempt me to start an encyclopedia article about Saint Borage or Colpalgia the Short-Tempered. FWIW, WP:CSD A7 provides for speedy deletion of "(a)n article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject," and this comes close. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for lack of assertion of notability. Being old does not make something notable. Find some independent reliable sources, Arumoro, and I'm sure we'll all change to keep. Someguy1221 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per following discussion. Someguy1221 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have edited the article, including a couple of third party resources. Unfortunately, the source I think would have best marked the article is long since out of print, and unable to be found by myself (Paper Mayhem, a magazine that focused on Play by Mail games). As for the fact of it being old doesn't make it something notable, that was not truly my point. My point was that, having lasted for over 15 years at this point in time, the game has stood the test of time, and in the process, has managed to do something that many "real world" companies/entities have not been able to do. EPM games has successfully moved from the physical world to the electronic world. This task has been something which has caused grief for the majority of the publications, companies, etc which began in the standard "brick and mortar" business. Seeing as how the game has done so, regardless of the difficulties presented would show notability. Arumoro 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately, the new sources do not count as independent, as anyone can post information those sites. Someguy1221 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Would this be considered an independent source? review on GamingReport.com I notice other articles citing GamingReport. Another review in an independent source is Flagship Magazine review. Hughbayer 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Gaming Report doesn't count, as (similar to the other sites) anyone can submit a review. It is slightly better though in that its reviews are themselves reviewed by supposedly independent editors. Flagship Magazine, on the other hand, does qualify as an independent source, and based on what turned up on google news, I'll assume it to be reliable short of any evidence to the contrary. Place the reviews in the external links to the page, and for me this becomes more of a sourcing issue (one good source, one so-so source, a bunch on dependent ones). Good work, editors. Someguy1221 22:00, 25 May 2007 (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.