Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CthulhuTech

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CthulhuTech

[edit]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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.
          • *Groan*. If you want an example of a Wikipedia page that does satisfy notability criteria, you can have a look at the Dungeons & Dragons page. If you exclude all the sources directly connected with the game, you have, at a quick glance, coverage from Dragon Magazine, BBC News Online, an academic paper, an academic book, The Courier magazine, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Onion. This is far more than an article would need to attain notability, but there is proof that notability does not exclude RPGs. (Incidentally, Wikipedia articles, quite rightly, are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source.) If you would like to discuss how a RPG can qualify as notable with people who know this subject better, I suggest you leave a message on the talk page of the WikiProject for Role-playing games. You never know, they may even be able to help you for claims to notability. If you wish to carry on the way you are going, you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but that won't alter consensus, and it's consensus that counts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've ignored your own criteria for sources in your references: Dragon is owned by the same company that makes D&D, while The Onion is an online website. And it's somewhat disingenuous to cite D&D when it's probably the only RPG that would get mainstream news coverage. What about the countless other RPGs that are listed in wikipedia? Look at the page for Talislanta and tell me how it qualifies for notability but mine doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could go into the finer details of why Dragon Magazine or The Onion can be argued as sources, but that an aside point. Regarding your argument on Talislanta, first of all you should read WP:WAX. All this shows is that no-one has challenged Talislanta for notability yet. It may be that if Talislanta was nominated for deletion, it too would have trouble claiming notability. On the other hand, the fact that the Wikiproject Roleplaying games reviewed the article here suggests that at least one person didn't consider this article lacked notability. Beyond that I can't give a more specific answer, but if you ask the Wikiproject Roleplaying Games they will be able to tell you. All I can do is repeat what I have already suggested: contact them and they will be able to advise you on notability far better than I can. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I appreciate your point of view, however there is nothing near consensus on this topic. There are four contributors arguing for deletion, and three contributors arguing against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did see them. I don't like the tone of this discussion--AfD is not a personal attack on the article or a denigration of the subject matter; it's simply a question, in this case, on whether something is notable. I believe it is not, and I have yet to see evidence, reputable evidence of notability by third-party sources, to the contrary--and bulletin boards and company-run sites don't count, for various but well-established reasons. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but recreate when "it has some gorgeous artwork" is an inclusion criterion. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add the following: The roleplaying genre is a small community-driven hobby that has few, if any, "reliable sources" as defined by deletionists above. There is no New England Journal of Roleplaying. Even magazine print publications dedicated to RPGs are few or non-existent (the most popular two, Dungeon and Dragon, are now online-only). Hence, 90% of "reliable sources" are hobby websites. I have provided a link to a review of CthulhuTech on rpg.net, probably the most popular such community site. There have been countless discussions about this game on that site, and others like paizo.com. I can provide links if absolutely necessary, but frankly I do not have the time to debate this topic for days on end. CthulhuTech has been nominated for awards at the Ennies, the annual RPG awards, so "gorgeous artwork" is indeed something that people in the RPG community have noticed and for which the game is notable. I have presented no controversial information on the page and have made it simply to allow people to discover a few facts about the game. I am not the game author, just a fan. This is not self-promotion. I honestly don't see why the wikip admins are putting so much effort into deleting a small factual piece that would do nothing except enlighten a few visitors who may type in this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RPG.net gets approximately 150,000 unique visitors per month, which is approximately the same as number of readers of National Review. I certainly would consider a mention in the "National Review" to be "notable", so why not RPG.net? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails our standards. Yes, there are RPG zines, etc.; there's no evidence that they have reviewed this game. We gamers have to hold our hobbies to the same standards as anybody else; and WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for inclusion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalence, with two contingencies. If an Ennie and/or Origins award constitutes a major literary award, I think we can retain this once a citation for such is properly and clearly tacked on. Buuuut, I'm not really sure if that counts. I have found some coverage at io9, but I have no idea if that constitutes any kind of legitimate independent coverage since I have no familiarity with that particular source. All in all, despite my enjoyment of the game, I'm leaning toward delete at least as a for-now. If luck is with the company, I do think this will be solidly Wikiworthy one day. - Vianello (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's give the article some time before we quash it? With some good editing and citations it can be made into a workable inclusion to the site. It's not a freebie game like Wushu or Tri-Stat, it's a published property that is succeeding – it only needs for this to be proved, which it can with some time and room to edit and clean it. Also, this game is not a derivative of the Call of Cthulhu (roleplaying game). The only thing they have in common is HP Lovecraft as source material. Wyatt Salazar (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to do some good editing and citations, the best approach is to flag the article with {{rescue}}, and do what you can to add references yourself. You've got just over four days before this debate is closed (more if it gets relisted, which I suspect it will). I suspect you won't get a sympathetic response to "giving the article some time" because the majority of AfD 2nd nominations are where they did just that and nothing was done. The one argument that is most definitely not admissible is that Cthulutech will be successful soon. If the only thing standing in the say of deletion is that Cthulutech will be notable one day, Cthulutech will be appropriate for Wikipedia when that happens, and not before. In the meantime, I'm changing my vote back to Delete until either notability is asserted in the article or someone suggests another home for Cthulutech. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flagged it with {{rescue}} now, thanks for that suggestion. I just joined wikipedia today and am trying to learn this stuff as fast as I can. For how it used to look like, the article is better now. I know it's not enough – and frankly I understand that my argument towards keeping it is not an argument of any depth. I don't even really know if the Cthulhutech folks care about their article much, from the state that I saw it in when I came here. But meh. I want to try my hand at it. Four days, you say? Looks hopeless, but it's not like I have anything better to be doing.Wyatt Salazar (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I'm changing my vote to Weak keep. I have yet to be convinced that the sources cited so far are enough to establish notability. However, the original grounds for AfD were that notability wasn't asserted at all. There are now some references in the article, and I think it would make more sense now if this AfD was closed without deleting the article (possibly adding all the necessary cleanup tags), and if anyone still thinks there's not enough notability, to open that as a fresh AfD nomination. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris Neville-Smith and good-faith efforts (and per WP:BITE). Red-links are no reason to delete and we can always nuke this later if clean-up efforts fail to address notability concerns. Online gaming sources are notoriously more elusive to suss out and newbies shouldn't be penalized for not following the letter and spirit of WP:N. -- Banjeboi 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews, including [1] seem to be enough to establish notability. Article is in poor shape, but that's not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There are academic journals devoted to Games (namely Games and Culture) and there are plenty of journals, magazines, books and articles devoted to the roleplaying game industry. A lack of sources found doesn't immediately mean that our search methods are too parochial. The sources cited in the article and noted above are mainly non-RS. I'm on the fence about RPGnet because they appear to have some clout but don't specify where the edited content ends and user-generated content begins. Most of the rest don't count. I don't find anything on Books, News or Scholar ('Scept the io9 post, and io9 isn't an RS). Protonk (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CthulhuTech&oldid=1137747093"