Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath!


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability by GNG is not established—no independent, reliable sources. PROD removed.  czar  &middot;   &middot;  01:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources as stated above. Article reads as original research at best and an advertisement at worst. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wow, another classic on the chopping block. Game was originally published 30 years ago. It is still being reprinted to this day. D&D didn't even have that solid of a game system without new editions. So, some info: - site detailing all books in series,  decent write up of most books in the series. Article has combined all of these into one page, which I don't have a problem with. I am sure there are written reviews in the gaming magazines back in the day. I am trying to remember which one focused on this genre. However, some recent reviews (reminder - for a game 30 years old), , .  Finally found the hard copy ones.  White Dwarf, Issue 34, Page 16, detailed review. . Reviewing websites confirms White Dwarf did cover Aftermath in articles frequently. I am positive there are plenty of other reviews outthere. The problem is locating reviews written 20 years before the internet. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of links, yet no RS. How is this game established as notable apart from its association with Fantasy Games Unlimited? (Notability being WP:NOTINHERITED.) Wouldn't it make more sense to have all major FGU games as sections within the main article? I could support that. Right now, parts of the RPG side of Wikipedia read like directories of rules/gameplay with no effort made to establish notability (i.e., anywhere within the article, even if RS do exist out-of-reach in print form). czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And what is wrongwith the hardcopy magazine reviews? There used to be a time when there wasn't an internet. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing. But we have no way of verifying the detail of these reviews or whether it even creates a case for the topic's notability. I'm not finding any other references to WD reviews. Is a single review enough to establish notability in this field? Similar point to Bushido's AfD: no one's saying these RPGs don't matter—the question is whether they warrant their own articles. A merge of relevant info here (into a notable parent company) seems very straightforward to me. Sending WP:RPG out to save topics without independent, reliable sources is a disservice to this AfD conversation. czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - "we" ? I just verified them. Per your own link, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I don't have time to enter them into the article right now, but they are real. We are writing about topics that pre-date the internet by approximately 20 years (give or take a few depending on the exact book). That people are still writing reviews about them (even though they don't meet RS per Wikipedia policies) 30 years after the fact should tell you something about the product. The reviews from its time of release are going to be hard copy. Nothing in the policy says this isn't allowed. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that they are real—I doubt that they are enough. And fan interest ≠ RS. Look, I'm sure they're important to you and the RPG field, or we wouldn't be here right now, but are they important (notable) in an encyclopedia? That's my question. I think this fails GNG. See Daredevils' AfD czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Censoring an encyclopedia to remove aspects of our cultural heritage is not a game to some of us. If they're important to the RPG field, they're important to an encyclopedia that presumes to cover that field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although not 100% original (The Morrow Project predated this by a couple of years), the game itself is still notable. FGU was one of the innovators during this period of RPG design. Intothatdarkness 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very well-known RPG. Nominator appears to be one of the many who does not really understand what WP:OR actually means and does not appreciate that sources do not have to be online to be acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominator did not do the due diligence in looking for articles. Sources exist and are being added. Web Warlock (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the multiple attacks across several AfDs. Please WP:AGF and share the mentioned RS if you have them. czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't follow the guidelines don't get upset when your errors are pointed out to you. Per WP:DEL you made no attempt to edit the article, no attempt to discuss changes. Your first edit to this article was to PROD it.  This is a violation of the community norms and standards. Web Warlock (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable in the history of gaming. --Lquilter (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A search indicates that the subject has been covered in multiple secondary sources, including the magazines Asimov's Science Fiction and Analog Science Fiction, so it does meet the general notability guideline.-- xanchester   (t)  23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links. Isn't "multiple" a stretch? Would you call any of the other hits reliable? And re: the two blurbs, GNG states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Is there really enough material here for an encyclopedia article? czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject has also been given detailed coverage by The Escapist in a 2007 article . That, along with the above mentioned secondary sources (the White Dwarf review and the science fiction magazines), leads me to believe that it does qualify for GNG.-- xanchester  (t)  01:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.