Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul


 * 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. The discussion deteriorated into yelling and ground to a halt. Please, click here and go "awwww".... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This exhaustive article on a small board game cites no source of any kind (RS or non-RS). A search on Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to find any references to "Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul" or to ""Capes, Cowls and Villains Foul". Ed. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 13 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) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Newimpartial. Could you please not refer to me, or other editors, as "clueless"? I've previously asked [] you to not use AFD discussions to engage in personal attacks against those with whose !votes you disagree. I'm not personally offended to be called names, however, other editors who might like to participate in this discussion might be discouraged from casting a !vote if they're afraid it could open them up to attacks from you. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing consideration. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to AGF, I really did, but your rationales just became more and more egregious. Anyway, you have to ridicule people who submit to AfD articles that they don't understand: that's what ridicule is for. :P It's not as though my effort at politeness was getting through: you just went right back to IDONTLIKEIT and ICANTHEARYOU. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "you have to ridicule people" - I respectfully disagree. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your respect would appear more genuine if you could exercise the capacity to stop trolling us, but I frankly don't think you have it in you. Your inkjet/Indianapolis series may not be comedy gold, but it is certainly not "respectful". Less infuriating than the deliberate misuse of "Fanzine", I'll allow - that really was maximum troll. Oh, the days... Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * merge to List of role-playing games by name.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Spectrum Games per WP:PRODUCT. Article is sourced to game itself and non-RS. Fails GNG. Failes notability criterion for inclusion in suggested merge target. Jbh  Talk  17:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to company that produces the game. - Scarpy (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's about time the nominator found out a little more about the things they nominate for deletion. Including the difference between an RPG and a board game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? I think the greater problem is that the people who are writing these articles need to find out a little more about Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and sourcing requirements. Jbh  Talk  14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters. Someone nominating at AfD has as much responsibility to do it accurately and without misrepresentation as someone writing an article has to know about our procedures. It's too easy to knock off an AfD nomination without properly researching the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Does it really matter?" sounds like a question a gleeful bull in a china shop would ask. Of course understanding the subject – at least on some basic fundament matter – is important... unless one is just approaching it from an WP:IDONTLIKEIT position and smells blood in the water, looking for something to destroy and glad to have found it. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternately it could be a belief that WP:V is of fundamental importance and that we have inclusion criteria and sourcing requirements for a reason ie they are the foundation which makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Jbh  Talk  15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that to the extent that lack of knowledge of the topic may compromise BEFORE. On the other hand, articles with poor to non-existent sourcing like I have seen on game/comic AfDs recently do not require anything beyond knowledge of notability/sourcing guidelines and reasonable BEFORE skills. Editors with more in-depth knowledge may be able to improve the sourcing but that does not invalidate the good faith of the nomination of obviously problematic articles. Jbh  Talk  15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Understanding the nature of the "product" in question involves making judgements some questions crucial to AfD, such as whether NBOOK (or CREATIVE) applies, whether the article is subject to NORG or NBIO, the relevance of awards, etc. While it is certainly possible to have policy-based disagreements on these issues (and an RfC or village pump discussion may eventually be needed to improve clarity and consistency of policy application), it is not possible to have productive disagreements when the nom or other participants either lack knowledge of the topic or are unwilling to use the terminology in the reliable sources.
 * IME, it also produces unnecessary friction each time a new editor wanders into this area of AfD without having read some of the prior discussions, and tries to impose novel policy interpretations or OR notability criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What you describe requires understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines – When an editors "tries to impose novel policy interpretations or OR notability criteria" is indeed disruptive but what you seem to mean by "Understanding the nature of the 'product'" seems to mean 'being receptive to special pleading'. For example claims that a game company is not a company but a collection of artists and therefore exempt from NORG or that game books and supplements are 'books' rather than 'instruction manuals' ie rule books or 'reference material' ie supplemental material to aid in game play. Making those calls requires knowing Wikipedia PaGs not esoteric knowledge of games. Same thing goes with sourcing and being able to distinguish sources which may be reliable for content ie some SPS or 'expert' blogs vs being valid for purposes of notability ie providing coverage which is at the same time significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. There are some topics which require an in-depth understanding to assess such things, mostly in hard-sciences or other topics requiring specialist or advanced knowledge. RPGs and other games are not such a topic. In fact, from the articles I have observed, it seems to be tending to a walled garden where notability is secondary – I mean who vetted an article sourced entirely to game books and a blog and thought it was OK?!  Anyway, this has gone well off topic of this AfD. I suggest adjourning the discussion to my talk page if you wish to continue it.  Jbh  Talk  16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Without prolonging the discussion here much longer, I would just note that per WP:DEADLINE there is nothing wrong with creating unsourced non-BLP articles, as long as sources exist, and per WP:NOTCLEANUP, the correct response to such articles is not AfD if sources arise from a proper BEFORE. (Yes, those are essays, but they reflect the ethos of WP:AFD, which is not an essay.)
 * I would also suggest that questions such as the potential application of the "instruction manual" argument to the Guide to Glorantha -- a game publication without game content -- or the relevance of literary criticism to Hillfolk -- a role-playing game by a published literary critic -- benefit more from those aware of the subject-matter than they do from those who seek to apply WP "rules of thumb" without regard to context, with as much consequence in this much smaller field as knowledge of related topics brings to, say, discussions of the notability of schools and academic programmes, or medical science brings to MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * is not AfD if sources arise from a proper BEFORE Per BEFORE - "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search." As described in the nomination, the minimum BEFORE was not only met but exceeded, specifically newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google Books, Google News. BEFORE does not require the nom to spend weeks checking the stacks in the manuscripts and archives unit of the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin Public Library. As of the timestamp, no sources have been added to the article, no sources described in the AfD, and no sources unearthed in a BEFORE that exceeded the minimum requirements. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in this case, no, and there is a reason I haven't !voted keep on this case. I was responding per policy, about what is required for a policy-compliant nom. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFDFORMAT a policy-complaint nom will (a) describe "how the article meets/violates policy", (b) describe a COI if one exists, (c) affirm a BEFORE search if applicable to "A". I neglected to put "Fails GNG" to meet criteria "A" and have updated it accordingly. The nom is now fully compliant. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And I accept that, by now, you have done an appropriate BEFORE in this case. But as there were other cases where you did not, e.g. Man, Myth and Magic and Hillfolk, I believe a certain degree of skepticism was warranted. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DROPTHESTICK. Really. Drop it. Nothing constructive will come of continuing this and it is disruptive. Jbh  Talk  19:33, 22 August 2018 (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.