Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodlust (roleplaying game)


 * 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. Editors arguing to keep this page have not answered the legitimate concerns raised with the provided sources. Vanamonde (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Bloodlust (roleplaying game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been unsourced for preceding 11 years. A search on Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR fails to find any sources. Article fails the GNG for lack of SIGCOV. Attempt to remove through WP:PROD (not WP:BLPPROD) was contested on the grounds it "isn't a BLP". Chetsford (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego". Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove personal attack.  HighKing++ 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * O High King, I specifically asked the editor in question if he wanted those struck through, and he never replied. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , well, why didn't you just go ahead and do it? You were told it was a personal attack, why leave it in place? Also, continually referring to me as "O High King" could also be seen as mocking by me and others. Just for the record, if you're going to go down that road you should use the full title of "Oh Greatest High King", anything else is an insult! :-)  HighKing++ 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * O Greatest and most glorious High King, when I am having a discussion on my Talk page about the appropriateness of text I have posted, and propose a course of action, I will not by courtesy pursue that course of action until I hear from the person concerned. This is particularly true after my first attempt to redress courtesy issues with this editor - my NOTFORUM deletion of content from the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD - was rebuffed, even upon his further reflection. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Building on what HighKing said; in order to keep these AfDs on some semblance of topicality, I've tried to avoid responding directly to your many declarations that I've been personally discourteous to you and that you, therefore, "have to ridicule" me . However, moving forward, could I kindly ask you raise the issue of my discourtesy at ANI with diffs (at ANI)? That will help us keep discussion at AfDs focused and topical. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. There are a few citations on the French version of this article. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I've looked at the sources in French, and include discussion in a magazine and in a dissertation, which in combination satisfy NBOOK and the GNG.Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added four reliable sources to the article - three in French, one in German - and have deleted the unsourced, in-game content. User:HighKing, could you take a look at the new sourcing before your !vote goes final? Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Ideally, new comments should appear at the bottom. I've also added another indent to your statement above to keep with normal styles and make it easier to read. It would also be very helpful if, when you are asking for references to be examined, you post links here rather than expecting an editor to investigate changes in the article and extract references.
 * You appear to have added the word "noted" to the lede along with this Masters Thesis by Chouzneroux. I'm not sure why you believe this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The game is only mentioned once in-passing and the reference doesn't appear to support your insertion of the word "noted".
 * The next reference added appears to be this German review of Hyperborea, the German version of Bloodlust. The first step is to check if the reference is from a reliable source but I don't think this website is anything we can rely on. They're a German couple that like playing video games and role playing. For me, this fails WP:RS.
 * Next, it is a reference for issue 8 of the Marauder magazine. It is difficult for me to ascertain whether this is a reliable source. It appears to be a website set up by a group of players. I know that the RPG world is small but ... even so, this appears to be fairly niche.
 * Overall, nothing here has convinced me that this game meets the criteria for notability but I will say that we are dealing with a non-English language game in an already niche (although growing) area.  HighKing++ 13:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On threading, I added my comment as a reply to my own !vote, as is certainly sometimes done at AfD.
 * On the thesis, my point is that the author chose this specific game by Croc as one to discuss, out of all of his games, which is why I tied the source to "noted".
 * The German source is self-published by independent industry professionals and therefore reliable per policy; I chose this particular one but many other reviews exist particularly in French and German. I also suggest that we all need to get better at evaluating this sort of content, as these sources become increasingly important with the decline of print media and their immediate successors.
 * Marauder is a major French e-magazine which has established consistent quality in its field and consistent production values in each issue; it is not "a website set up by a bunch of players". I trust that the closer will take these factors into consideration, and the principle that WP treats non-English sources and English sources equally. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On threading, usually not at AfD's. Can happen if it makes sense but usually not. No biggie, but your new comment would have been better entered at the foot of the AfD so that a closing admin gets a sense of the chronological order of the discussion, which could be important if your new references were good and changed consensus. A closing admin would have known, chronologically, which !votes occurred before your new references and weighed the previous arguments accordingly.
 * Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thesis, but they one I'm reading doesn't discuss Bloodlust at all and is merely listed among other RPG titles. That, btw, does not make this game "noted", only that it is in a list in a thesis. Big difference. Be careful about WP:INTEGRITY and WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * You say that the German source is self-published. That's a big negative, see WP:SELFPUB. Also, be aware that the standard for sources that support citations within an article is a different (and lower) standard to that required to establish notability. I wouldn't object to this source being used to support a fairly trivial factoid, but it could not be used for an extraordinary fact and rejected completely for establishing notability. What might change people's minds are other reliable industry sources proclaiming the German couple as experts in their fields (and not just, as their YouTube channel suggests, a couple of avid gamers).
 * When you say "major" French e-magazine, what are you basing that on? And the quote about "a website set up by a bunch of players" is supported by the About Us page on the website.
 * In general, I have noticed a very big gap between what you consider a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability and what others consider to be the criteria. I realise that part of the problem is that we are dealing with a small niche-interest subject (RPG) and then even smaller topics within that subject such as individual games. But that does not mean that the requirements for notability change.  HighKing++ 17:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By "major", I mean "relied on by those in the specific field for consistently accurate content and acute analysis", which is, I think, the relevant definition. And there is a specific "carveout" in NPUB for those who have demonstrated their expertise outside of self-publishing, whose self-publications can then be considered RS. My sense of the world is that this category of sources will become increasingly important to WP in general, as the academic track fills up with junk journals and the advertising-supported professional publications implode. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , OK. I note you didn't address all the points, that's fine, and I assume you are solely addressing the point on Marauder. Can you please show where the "major" French e-magazine was "relied on by those in the specific field for consistently accurate content and acute analysis"? As to the carveout in NPUB - I do not know which point you are addressing, it could be more than one. Please, when responding, try to reduce any potential misunderstandings and try to be clear on which specific point you are addressing. I am aware of the specific carveout in NPUB - I've used it myself once or twice - but ... therefore ... I also know how that needs to be qualified. In my case I was able to show that the person spoke at major conferences and had published a book on the subject. Can you point to anything that shows this to be the case for your source?  HighKing++ 12:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No references have been produced that establish notability. References must be "independent".  HighKing++
 * Both the magazine and dissertation references are "independent" (and indeed, I can't imagine how a graduate dissertation would not be "independent" in this context. What a curious statement). Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing these at? On the French Wikipedia there are 3 sources: one is a blog (the description used by the site's author) by a guy named "Jérôme" (no surname given), one is a post on a message board , and one is a product entry on a site called legrog.org  that describes itself as an "interplanetary organization" and says (on its About page) it accepts reader contributions from "across the universe". Chetsford (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you asked nicely, I found the dissertation on Google Scholar and the Maraudeur magazine I found using french-language Google  . ;). Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This MA thesis has only been cited in four places (two of which, themselves, are just other theses), in none of those from a cursory glance was the material on Bloodlust used, and the author (Vincent Chouzenoux) appears to have an H-Index of zero (0). I'll refrain from commenting on the Marauder thing. Chetsford (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again you are misreading SCHOLARSHIP; it is not intended as a Notability guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. It's a reliability guideline. And unreliable sources don't contribute to notability. I'm not sure what you mean by "again" though? I've never mentioned SCHOLARSHIP previously AFAIK. Are you thinking about this exchange in a different AFD you had with FourViolas regarding SCHOLARSHIP? Sorry if I've misunderstood you. Chetsford (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , this is not the first time that you are being obtuse with points made. If not that, you engage in mocking others or openly attacking them personally for which you've been warned. I now suspect you are setting out to deliberately disrupt as many AfDs as possible. It is blatently clear that Chetsford is pointing to SCHOLARSHIP which is part of WP:RS which, of course, means that a reference that fails RS *cannot* be used to establish notability. If you continue to disrupt AfDs in this way, I will have no choice but to report your behaviour as disruptive. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Chet, my apologies: I thought you had borrowed FourViolas' misinvocation of SCHOLARSHIP before, since you had both made the same mistaken argument (that if Designers & Dragons did not meet SCHOLARSHIP, it would not be a RS for Notability, which is entirely incorrect). SCHOLARSHIP is a content guideline, not a Notability guideline, so it is inappropriate to wikilawyer specific provisions of SCHOLARSHIP when deciding about Notability. Theses published in French on RPGs simply can't be evaluated using the same criteria as, say, biochemistry, where findings specific to a single work are likely to be either uninteresting or wrong. This is a good example of why IAR exists - to pre-empt that kind of lawyering.
 * High King, please try to empathize with my perspective. Someone who has never participated in RPG AfDs nominates 15 articles for deletion, mischaracterizes all of them in the nomination (either out of ignorance or intentionally; I'm not sure which interpretation is AGF in this case), mockingly dismisses sources  and belittles awards   that are well-known and understood by anyone knowledgeable in the domain, as well as expressing   real or feigned ignorance of the works under discussion (though the former seems unlikely given this claim  ). While my reaction to this was, at times, intemperate - notably in the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD - I submit that the disruptive effort on balance was quite on the other side.
 * Chetsford consistently called a WALLEDGARDEN what is not, he repeatedly called FANZINES what are not (including sources affirmed as reliable at RSN), and nominated pages for deletion (I'm looking at Man, Myth and Magic) that are among the revered games of the genre. His response to being called on his nonsense in his initial AfDs was to double down and nominate more. Most recently he has made a second nomination of an AfD from a couple of months ago which I can only imagine was chosen on the basis of WIKISTALKING - I can't see how else he would have chosen that particular, sourced, article for deletion. So any "disruption" you feel that I have made needs to be placed in context: if there were a version of NOTHERE specific to RPG AfDs, that would be our Chet.Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I would like to take this opportunity to, again, encourage you to direct accusations against individual editors (including Wikistalking, which is particularly serious) to WP:ANI, instead of peppering them throughout AFDs. This helps keep the AFD focused and topical. While I AGF this was not your intent, some editors may perceive the relentless insertion of WP:WALLOFTEXT accusations against individual editors into AFDs as an attempt to derail or subvert the process by deluging it. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Chet. I was responding directly to the High King's accusation above, "this is not the first time that you are being obtuse with points made. If not that, you engage in mocking others or openly attacking them personally for which you've been warned. I now suspect you are setting out to deliberately disrupt as many AfDs as possible", by providing appropriate context. My practice is to respond to interventions in the venue where they are made, which is probably one reason it is easy to provoke me into displaying emotional responses in these fora, as you well know.Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I originally created the page ten years ago and indeed, it looks like I was negligent with sources. A good source would be the article on the original edition of this game in the paper magazine Casus Belli, issue n°67, january-february 1992. This article has been reproduced by the website Le GROG, at the bottom of the page that describes it: http://www.legrog.org/jeux/bloodlust/bloodlust-fr French magazines (which is to say either Casus Belli or Backstab) have mentioned the game and its supplements over the 90's. The Métal edition was covered in the new version of Casus Belli, issue n°4, August 2012, but I don't have access to that magazine. Rell Canis (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the available sources. The sources in the article are from a blog and a French gaming e-zine and their reliability and independence hasn't been established. It may pass WP:GNG but does not at the moment. The way to solve this? More sources. Also note, based on the above wall of text, I'm not watching this AfD and will not be drawn into a discussion about my vote. SportingFlyer  talk  08:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There may be sufficient non-English sources to pass GNG out there but none have been provided nor can I locate any, although I do not speak French so... Current sourcing is not sufficient and does not seem to be RS. Jbh  Talk  12:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.