Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell of Lost Souls


 * 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   delete. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bell of Lost Souls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. The prod rationale was that no secondary sources were present. Three were added: one is an Alexa ranking, another is from a similar website, so they amount to mere directory entries. The third one is about a convention, and is behind a paywall, so we can't verify whether BoLS is mentioned at all. Only one relevant result on Google News.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lactoad12 Website is 6 years old, a top 20k website in the United States and one of the largest in the wargaming industry. Both age and traffic is verified by multiple reputable sources. To discount Alexa is to discount the bedrock demographics site online regarding website size. Magazine reference (Privateer Press No quarter#44) is to a physical publication and is correct. Multiple wargames manufacturers and websites of various sizes both larger (Privateer_Press) and smaller (The_Miniatures_Page) are already listed in wikipedia, both in the gaming websites directory and directly by manufacturer. Generally, the tabletop wargaming industry is poorly represented on wikipedia at this time and many of their pages need improvement or submission. If required, more secondary sources can be added. I argue against deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lactoad12 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article Privateer Press is adequately referenced. As for The Miniatures Page, the article is tagged with a long term notability concern. The only thing in the article that currently saves it from speedy deletion (that is deletion on sight without a discussion such as this one) is a reference to kudos received from other sources, and that statement is currently not supported by a reference.
 * As for why we discount Alexa rankings as valid, please read ALEXA. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just promotion and fancruft. Six pages into a Google search I couldn't find a single reliable third-party reference or review or something. This would belong in a "List of websites that cover some game", if such a thing existed. § FreeRangeFrog 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Eight more secondary sources added from various manufacturer and wargaming community sites. Lactoad12 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Lactoad12 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Website covers all major products in the wargames industry from a variety of manufacturers, and works directly with manufacturers based on submitted references. Unknown where the "fansite" moniker previously mentioned is derived from? Lactoad12 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Just a fansite about a game.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, a website can get products from various manufacturers and cover all sorts of products within the gaming world, but that doesn't mean that it's notable. Heck, the site could even get to the point where it could be considered a reliable source to show notability for a game, but that in itself doesn't guarantee notability either. Being enough of a trusted place or an authority to be considered a reliable source doesn't mean that the site is considered notable. I'm not saying that the site is or isn't usable to source notability for other articles, just that writing articles about various gaming stuff and being in contact with any manufacturer in any context does not automatically give notability. Notability is not inherited by association with notable persons or products, after all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a pure WP:ADVERT by a WP:SPA who is its sole defender. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search brought up only this brief mention in 1Up.com, but it's far from being an in-depth source about the website. There is nothing out there that appears to be both independent and reliable that shows notability for this website. The thing about websites is that you don't inherit notability by working with or reviewing notable products or notable companies. Notability is not inherited. You could be gaming with Rick Priestly every night and he could have the site's name tattooed over his heart. That doesn't give the site notability, although such a thing would probably make it more likely that it would gain coverage in reliable sources. That's all that association with notable persons or companies really does- just make it more likely that the site will gain coverage in RS. Given that we have a lack of coverage, the website just doesn't pass WP:WEB. I have no extreme problems with the article being userfied, but given that you are new and aren't as savvy on notability, I'd recommend that you get some help from one of the various wikiprojects for games before reposting the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A summary for the record for whomever has to ultimately make a judgement on this: The article was submitted for deletion for lack of secondary sources regarding community size and industry notability. Sources were researched and added addressing the original deletion reasons. 3rd parties arrive, levy additional assertions against the article, its author, and delete 1/3 of it.  Fundamentally the data in the article is what matters, NOT the author.  If an article is fundamentally sound as above user has stated, except for the newness of the author, then any experienced user should feel free to delete it and resubmit it themselves. Charges of WP:SPA innately smack of favoritism and clannish behavior - not empirical analysis. Additional charge of a single defender has no weight (but thanks for trying - apparently Wikipedia's own rules regarding weight of numbers in these decisions needs to be brushed up on).  Article in question was posted 24 hours ago, and thus far all comments have been from users who professionally troll the deletion logs (easily verified by their activity logs).  With a community of the purported size listed in the article, it would take 10 minutes for this log to have thousands of defending comments here - which also should have no weight. Long story short - original arguments for deletion addressed, new arguments devised, ad infinitum... Lactoad12 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly per Tokyogirl; The website is not notable enough. Its existence has not been discussed in reliable third party sources, so we almost relay purely upon first party sources to determine the website existence and information. This, therefore, fails the correspondent criteria, WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". It fails to achieve any of those. — Ṟ  Ṉ™  22:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete we need independent coverage of websites. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 4 December 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.