Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdor


 * 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. No reliable sources have been identified, and there are still no sources cited in the article.  Sandstein  13:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Erdor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a game has been devoid of references for the preceding 14 years. A standard BEFORE (Google Books, Google News, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any references. Article does not pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep if more sources can be found (particularly in the native French), otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had thought this one was closed as Keep, but I guess there was some complaining – it is a common response to close an AFD as Keep when all arguments are for Keep and no responses to Delete, but whatever. So, I will amend my Keep to reflect the sources provided below the relist by Newimpartial. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep French-language sources sufficient for GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite some of these sources so that other participants in this discussion can evaluate them? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Above says there are "French-language sources" but doesn't cite any. Can you confirm such sources exist? I have been unable to find any. Chetsford (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed this as keep, per a request on my talk page i've relisted it.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Really? We are petitioning admins to reverse their closes now when we DONTLIKETHEM? Two French sources with appropriate editorial oversight, recognized in the field, are legrog  and scifiuniverse  - can we go home now? Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-admin closure, with improper rationale. Bottom line, you didn't provide sources when asked so NEXIST wasn't met. Regarding both of the sources you've now provided, they fail WP:RS as WP:USERG. Both are open encyclopedia/dictory type sites. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable secondary sourcing has yet to be located. Provided sources are unreliable as directory/user-generated sites, which do not help with WP:GNG. Suggestion of a redirect to a list really isn't valid. Would suggest a redirect to developer/publisher, but they are also non-notable. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not "directory/user-generated" sites in the sense of WP:USERG; both cites I cited are subject to editorial oversight and standards of accuracy; they are not "open encyclopedias". The delete rationale provided here is therefore not valid. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if they are not open, scifi-universe.com is clearly a directory listing with no in-depth coverage and specifically lists that no reviews are available. Even giving Legrog.org the benefit of the doubt, that is a single source. (What I see on their "about us" type pages and stuff, I still wouldn't call it reliable) In-depth coverage is not established to pass WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per legrog.org's About section, it consists of user-generated content ("Once logged in, you may start by submitting some news that we're not aware of, and that we will gladly share with the community through our news page, as well as our RSS / Atom news engine. You may also tell us about upcoming cons and events, that we will add to our events calendar. "). Agree with ferret that scifi-universe.com is clearly a directory listing. Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another source, covered by the career-out for self-published writers and whose expertise is recotgnized within a fkeld, is this one 
 * I don't know why y'all are fighting this one so hard as to petition the reversal of the close. The point of WP:USERG is to ensure that the information we cite at WP is accurate; both of the sources I've offered have editorial oversight, so this is followed. The purpose of the WP:GNG and WP:N are to ensure that sources exist for the facts we claim about our topics, which is certainly achieved in this case. At times some editors seem to attribute Notability as a stalking horse for importance - which this little game written in Quebec can't pretend to have much of - but it is intended to be literally a synonym of "documentability" (if that were a word) and this little game definitely meets that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you don't get. It was an invalid close, nothing more. Posting a wordpress blog certainly isn't going to change any minds. You seem to be confusing WP:V with WP:GNG/WP:N as well. One deals with proving facts/details in the article, the others deal with whether or not we should even have an article. Nevermind you basically just said this game doesn't have any notability. -- ferret (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The key paragraph of WP:N (not WP:V is the following:
 * Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
 * The relevant passage from WP:SPS is as follows:
 * Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
 * This is the case for the self-published review I cited above. And subjective "importance" is not at all the same as notability". Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To establish the WordPress blog as a self-published review from an "expert" we need to, first, establish that Mario Heimburger is an expert. This would occur through the presentation of RS that discuss his qualifications and reputation, not through simple assertion of his expertise by individual WP editors. We, second, would need to confirm this is a review authentically signed by Mario Heimburger. This can be done through either an unambiguously official website of Heimburger's that links to the WordPress blog, or a RS that links to the WordPress blog and attributes it to Heimburger. Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The self-discussion on the Wordpress blog is confirmed by the other places Heimberger is discussed, and is quite unambiguous on this point. Just read the blog etc. Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to establish the sources are reliable and the author having credentials, you can't just give people the classic "look it up". Especially in cases like this - WordPress blogs are almost never considered usable, and even less like to be considered something that counts towards meeting notability requirements. Using them is rare but can be rationalized, but using them to prove notability and as a centerpiece of one of a few sources in existence to prove it? No way. Sergecross73   msg me  12:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not saying "look it up", I am saying "read the source I have already given". And your "No way" is it exactly policy-compliant, dawg. The careve-out from WP:SPS is there for a reason. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying, provide some better rationales or some excerpts/direct quotes from your sources, because I'm not seeing what is supposed to be convincing me here. Or don't. But then you're not going to persuade anyone, and the article will likely end up deleted. Its up to you. I'd also love to see any precedent or example of the existence of a WordPress blog that was the turning point in proving that a subject met the WP:GNG. I've participated in hundreds of AFDs and merger/redirect discussions, and cannot recall a single time of this happening. I've only seen flailing editors try to push it as a last ditch attempt to save an article when they didn't have any valid reliable sources to provide. Sergecross73   msg me  17:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty confirming Mario Heimberger as an expert within this field. For which publications or under which publisher has he written in the past? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am thinking primarily of his professional contributions for Transboreal and Phenix. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have to look into Transboreal and Phenix to really say anything about Heimburger's status, but assuming he checks out, I still don't feel like there are enough sources, per my "Delete" !vote below. Thank you for telling me what to look into, though :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as Sergecross's question about SRS and AfD is concerned, the AfD database isn't really designed for this, but some examples where WordPress sources were crucial to (policy-compliant) Keep results may be found here, here, here and here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first example is an AFD with 11 sources given, and the Wordpress blog is specifically singled out for not being reliable by an editor. Another editor points out its a primary source. The article is also currently an unsourced WP:BLP. Not exactly a shining example of what Wikipedia strives for.
 * The second example is an AFD that specifically singles out a notable award - winning a Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist 8 times, as the keep rationale. It was kept because winning major awards generally satisfy subject-specific notability standards. (See examples like WP:NARTIST, WP:NSONG, WP:NBAND, etc.) It was not kept because of the reliability of a WordPress blog, and is completely not-comparable to the situation at hand.
 * This AFD has 3 participants. The 1st argument hinges entirely on the subject's special status in the church. The 2nd hinges his argument entirely on a similar subject with similar status (that has since been deleted no less). The 3rd hinges their argument on their status as well, and then lists off 16 some odd sources as part of the argument, with yes, some blogspots. No editors comment on the sources. The keep close is vague, but majority of the discussion was based around professional status than blogspot reliability.
 * A 6 year old discussion where an editor spams 17 sources into the discussion. 2 inexperienced editors give keep responses that are irrelevant to policy. An editor explains that many of the sources aren't reliable. The other editor give no valid counterpoint. No specific defense, or even specific discussion, is given to the blogspot(s) listed.
 * Did you just do some sort of advanced search for "Wordpress" and "keep" and just call it a day or something? Because none of these show any sort of valid discussion in favor of the validity of using Wordpress blogs as reliable sources. You just showed some low level, low participation discussions that contained those two keywords. They're terrible examples. Sergecross73   msg me  19:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am personally not sure what the purpose is in investigating the validity of websites that use WordPress technology or services. I think it simply being a "blog" is the issue, here. The exact platform used is completely irrelevant, and an expert could give their opinion on a Tumblr blog just as easily. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sergecross: as the nom can attest, my tolerance for migrating goalposts is not notably high. You said, I'd also love to see any precedent or example of the existence of a WordPress blog that was the turning point in proving that a subject met the WP:GNG. I offered four such examples. You have misread the first one (what 11 sources?) and want to discount the other three, but the fact is, my not-so-advanced search turned these up in the first batch of results. Per WP:SEALION, I am not going to invest my time in pursuing a vanishing set of goalposts or in kicking Lucy's football. The fact remains that SPS do meet WP:V under certain circumstances and the AfD "case law" bears that out, in spite of the non-policy-compliant comments ("nothing from a WordPress domain counts for WP:N") by some editors at AfD, who apparently find the complexity of actual WP policy and guidelines on the subject too confusing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think I’m moving the goalposts, then you didn’t understand the question to begin with. Sergecross73   msg me  23:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The question was literally the possible existence of a WordPress blog that was the turning point in proving that a subject met the WP:GNG - yes or no. The evidence says yes. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s ludicrous. The evidence says no. At no point in any of the 4 examples does it show any editor actually acknowledging being swayed by Wordpress blogs, and in multiple instances, it shows people actively singling them out as not valid. Sergecross73   msg me  03:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Insert arrow here) Let's review the four examples I happened upon: in the first, WordPress blogs were two of four sources cited by the only sourced Keep vote, and one of the other two was a database. The nom did CRYSPS but the result was Keep. In my second example, WordPress was the only source given for the Hugo Award, which was the only N factor mentioned. In the third case, literally all of the sources cited by the one keep vote were SPS, and that argument was the basis for the Keep result. In the last case, the vast majority of the independent sources cited in the one sourced Keep !vote, and the Keep result appears to have been based on the article expanding based on those sources. Yes, there was an editor in this case also who objected to the SRS, but that does not appear to have been a "turning point" in the discussion/result, which was your original goalpost: how could the decisive argument be the CRYSPS when the result was Keep? In all four cases I cited, the SPS were the turning point in the decision; I'm trying to AGF, but I can't see any other plausible way to actually read those discussions. Saying that editors should "acknowledge being swayed" is, in fact, a redeployment of the goal posts as I suggested above; what matters is the rationales offered and the outcome, which on each case depends crucially on the SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete – there simply aren't enough sources to write a proper article on this game. The sources that have been brought forth are of dubious reliability and there are only two of them. I wouldn't be surprised if this game had been reviewed by various French gaming magazines when it came out, but I am not able to find them. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 21:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails the WP:GNG - I’m not seeing multiple reliable sources that cover it in significant detail. Shockingly bad original close. Sergecross73   msg me  01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Just a minor bookkeeping note. When this (and also the AfD for Monastyr) were reopened, the category listings weren't dearchived. I've dearchived most of them, I believe, but (anyone) please feel free to hit any I might have missed. Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG. Not finding multiple reliable sources that cover the game in significant detail. Striker force Talk 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- No evidence for reliable secondary coverage as far as I can tell. Reyk YO! 13:13, 28 September 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.