Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labyrinth Lord

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth Lord

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

Reference 1 not about this game, just link to a license. Reference 2, not about this game, it's about D&D. Reference 3, self-published reference to their own rules. Reference 4, not RS, a sales catalog - even as free.

This game does not have the references that demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whoever wrote it obviously didn't know what references are for, and the tone is a little too promotional, but it's a notable topic. It just needs better sourcing and editing. I'm going to add some genuine references to start. zorblek (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll try to look for more sources over the next few days. If I can't find anything, then I'll change my vote to "delete". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the Escapist articles (which appear to have significant but not sole coverage on this topic) and the HM from ENnies is probably enough. I'm finding a LOT of reviews for this game but mostly in blogs. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ennie awards are a bunch of fandom nerds. An honorable mention there does not amount to notable anything. Miami33139 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - By that standard, it would be impossible to establish notability for any RPG-related article. The RPG industry, roleplaying media, and roleplaying-related organizations are entirely composed of "fandom nerds". There are not many RPG industry awards, and the Ennies are one of the few well-known ones. They don't give out Pulitzers for game design. zorblek (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Origins Award, not true. Gaming industry also has plenty of mass media attention, and notable industry specific magazines. You need to find those references. Miami33139 (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not exactly true Miami. There is some mass media coverage today but such coverage are from the gaming companies themselves. I hardly ever see an article in the newspapers or on TV news. Once in a while? Sure (especially if it's a negative story about some loon doing something crazy while involved in D&D or even just tangentially related to D&D). More importantly, LL came out in 1981, so the amount of information available today would naturally be limited. Therefore, I see no reason why this article can't be given a week for Zorblek to come up with something (also, I gave him two possible links he can explore). If at the end of week nothing has improved, I'll vote to delete it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        LL came out in 1981? Not according to our article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Moldvay/Cook B/X (which Labyrinth Lord emulates) came out in 1981, But Labyrinth Lord itself has only been around since 2007. zorblek (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Then the assertion that the amount of information about it today is "naturally limited" makes no sense whatsoever. The "heyday" of this product is essentially the modern era with respect to the Internet. Print sources would naturally not exist from circa 1981 because the game didn't exist in 1981. This AFD is not about the game(s) LL is based on. It's about LL, and needs reliable sources about it to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that calling the Ennies "a bunch of fandom nerds" is a meaningless ad hominem that is irrelevant to notability. The Origins Award people are no less nerdy than the Ennies people. (Also, the existence of another award ceremony doesn't make the first one non-notable. See also the Oscars and the Golden Globes.) And tabletop RPGs get almost no mass media attention. Pretty much the only times non-computer RPGs get any news coverage is when D&D comes out with a new edition (because everybody's heard of it) or when a roleplayer kills himself and they want a scapegoat. The only media outlets that give significant coverage to roleplaying are pretty much all house organs like Dragon Magazine (which is a website now anyway) or White Dwarf that only cover their company's games. Claiming that recognition from one of the few well-known third-party organizations in roleplaying can't be used to establish notability is tantamount to claiming that roleplaying isn't notable. zorblek (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no doubt that the article needs work, but it certainly is notable in the context of RPGs. Miami, the Honorable Mention for Labyrinth Lord is selected by a panel of judges. The judges are voted into "office" by the larger gaming community. These are not random nerds, but representative nerds of the general gaming populace at least as reflected in the online community. In that context the HM is even more significant because it shows that out of hundreds of submissions, Labyrinth Lord stands above them in notability. Some of those it beat out in this regard have wiki articles that are not challenged. Further, the HM was in the category of Best Game, which has even fiercer competition. You may think of this as a vote by a bunch of nerds, but those nerds are our gaming peers and they decide ultimately what is notable. chazster —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 29 July 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.