Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-RPG System


 * 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. Jreferee   t / c  16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

E-RPG System

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:FICT WP:BK and maybe a copyright violation since most of the page is a quote pulled from the defunct RPGBlog.net. As good faith I've merged that text block in to the article Ironwood Omnimedia which I have previously tagged for several citing issues. Torchwood Who? 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BK is a more appropriate guideline than WP:FICT, as this is certainly factual. A game system is not "in universe" by any stretch. --Dhartung | Talk 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I agree and have changed the grounds. --Torchwood Who? 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you disagree with there being entries for Ironwood Omnimedia Company; they are rather popular in circles here in Central Florida, also in Iowa. I am not affiliated with IOC nor have I ever been, I just love the system since I tried the free version and decided that there should be information out there for others researching it.  IOC was nominated for several Ennies and, according to one of the judges "E-RPG is one that fell victim to that lack of theme for this category"; as he recognized that the books are solid but being universal hurt them in the running. --James Alderman 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I don't have an issue with Ironwood Omnimedia Company entries that can prove notability, as I stated in the deletion nomination I even went so far as to move the quote block about E-RPG to the main Ironwood Article, however there are several redirects to the E-RPG system and E-RPG itself has little to no significant coverage in the media. I've asked the community to help imrprove the main Ironwood article here just prior to my noms. As for the Ruel Knudson nom... he's not notable in any way other than as associated with Ironwood and as such should not have his own article. If the main Ironwood article, which still has multiple issues, can be salvaged in the near future I'll have no issue with it and won't support deletion of it. I'm also skeptical of the fact that you have no association with the company as the ONLY contributions you've made to wikipedia are the creation of Ironwood articles. If you would like to attempt to prove the notability of the E-RPG system or the Ruel Knudson article, please provide reliable third-party sources to support your research. For example, where can we see the quote from the Ennie judge listed in print by a source not related to Ironwood?--Torchwood Who? 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * follow up I've noticed the Ennie judge blog link and would like to quote it here for the sake of the debate,


 * "E-RPG is one that fell victim to that lack of theme for this category that I spoke of earlier. Mechanics and writing aside, it's very straight forward and to the point, not allowing much room for things like art and layout concerns. That doesn't make it a bad book, but it can hurt it when stacked up against some of the other great entires."


 * This quote noted by James Alderman clearly implies that E-RPG couldn't hold up to other books in the category, a category for which it was NOT nominated at this year's Ennie awards. For James Alderman, I can only find references that show E-Rpg was nominated in one single, non-juried category at the Ennies and did not place. This also seems to be the first and only nomination for such an award. I'm not saying that E-rpg isn't a fun system to use (I don't know, I'm not really a gamer) but I am saying that it's just not notable enough right now to make the cut. Maybe it will be in future, but I just don't see it yet.--Torchwood Who? 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Failing to win an Ennie isn't a sign of notability. Percy Snoodle 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game related fiction-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Percy Snoodle. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Torchwood Who? 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The   Wikipedist  04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Apparently, this game is presently not notable. Were it to win a notable award, or to be covered by independent sources, it will well deserve an article. Goochelaar 14:13, 7 October 2007 (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.