Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus (role-playing 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Exodus (role-playing game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Found this while organizing the template box for the Fallout series. This article and its contents is a shocker. The article is ostensibly about a role-playing game which was originally supposed to tie-in with the Fallout franchise, but due to the legal drama between Interplay and ZeniMax, changed focus and became its own thing. One would think if such an article is nominated for deletion, it would probably be due to lack of its notability/notoriety or that the article is overly in-universe focused.

But no, it's worse. At least half of this article isn't actually about the game's rules or even its in-universe content, but actually about the RPG's IP legal drama and the involvement of the game's developers in their legal dispute with Interplay. None of it was ever sourced, besides a primary source link to the original developers' now long-inactive website. And it has remained that way for nearly 15 years. I went and did a thorough search per WP:BEFORE for sources, and all I ever found were Fandom/Wikia-related discussions, and numerous reddit/forum/personal blog posts. Absolutely nothing usable I could find about the original RPG which appears to have always languished in obscurity. I have so far, yet to uncover any information specifically about the legal proceedings between Glutton Creeper Games and Interplay, and yet this article go through it in surprising detail. I have concluded that besides the fact that there is no coverage which demonstrates that the topic is notable to begin with, the article is also a part-promotional coatrack for the original company (which is defunct) and part-outlet of vendetta spouting potentially defamatory material. This is the kind of content that brings the entire Wikipedia project into disrepute and the reason why concerns were raised years ago about Wikipedia's hosting of potentially defamatory material to begin with. Haleth (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Haleth (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:GNG. After trawling through Google the only source even approaching reliable that I could find is the three paragraphs on it here . —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not seeing any good sources here (ping me if they are found). There is also the option of redirecting this to (unrelated) Ultima III: Exodus, a crpg that is sometimes referred to as the "Exodus RPG" or such. If kept, a hatnote disambig or such may be needed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * keep covers the lawsuit.   is quite detailed and appears to be reliable.   is less detailed but certainly reliable.  Not great, but over the GNG bar.  Hobit (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I did come across the second link but it is a fanzine/blog (per the about page) and so probably not an RS. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to have both articles and blogs. This is an article.  And nothing excludes reliable fanzines.  This one has been running for at least 11 years (the article in question is 11 years old) so isn't a fly-by-night thing.  Hobit (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Won't argue the toss over it, but from a search it looks like the reliability of Flames Rising in particular has been discussed before at AfD, and the conclusion in that case was apparently that it isn't ("1 thin RS" is the journal article). Given that in any case we're relying on two borderline sources, FR and Geek & Sundry, to push it past the bare minimum of GNG it's still going to be a no from me, at least. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Geek & Sundry is really the only source cited here that is helpful to demonstrate notability for any pop culture topic, but the entirety of the content are 3 paragraphs about the legal drama behind the game, and barely any significant coverage about any actual aspect of the game itself. That kind of information is probably helpful for a “Legal Issues” on Bethesda’s article, or even as a component for a hypothetical standalone article about “controversies” or “legal issues” involving Bethesda. The Spanish one appeared to be saying the same things from a machine translation, and again only consists of a few paragraphs that is barely about the game itself. FlamesRising is of dubious reliability, and as pointed out by others, it is situational at best due to its status as a fanzine. I am not opposed to it’s use to fill out details about in-universe info per WP:V, but it is unhelpful to rely on for notability. Hence, deletion is the only option as there is nothing to preserve. Haleth (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like Flames Rising has significantly updated their "about us" page as I'm not seeing the language Roy quotes to be there. I'm seeing editorial control of a site that started 18 years ago.  Site seems to provide editorial oversight, have a long history and I can't find anything about it having any cases of significant errors in their 18 years.  Feel free to take it to WP:RSN and I wouldn't use it for a BLP or any controversial subjects.  But for a review?  Sure, it's fine. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with WP:AGF and assessing Flames Rising as a potentially reliable source given their long history of activity, and it is probably worth discussing on WP:RSN. However, we do need to put everything into context for the purpose of this discussion. When or which year has Flame Rising formally upped their editorial standards, or when has the site's credentials as a whole "leveled up" aka reached a saturation point where we could consider them to be a subject matter expert and thus reliable, whether as a self-published source (fanzine) or even as a journalistic source? The review for Exodus was posted in 2010, not by the owner or the project manager/reviewer, but by a Megan Robertson. That post does not list her byline(s), though the "about" section as well as her comments profile reveal that she runs another fanzine-like site, and she appears to have made no further contributions to Flame Rising after December 2012. Taking Roy's from 2018 comments and your comments of their "about" page into context, and I AGF that what Roy said was true and accurate, it is likely then that editorial control or oversight had only improved not that long ago, as there is no evidence I can see that it always had proper oversight since its first day of operation. To give an example, multiple sources have been given nuanced assessments through VG Wikiproject discussions, with clear distinction on when certain sites are judged reliable or otherwise based on what we know of their histories, for e.g. not everything on Kotaku is retroactively reliable, and The Escapist had content quality issues for nearly a year.  Haleth (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first source, which I machine translated, doesn't cover the lawsuit - it seems to mention Exodus in a single sentence. And it doesn't even mention the lawsuit, just "legal problems". Maybe it's a TL issue, but anyway, it's hardly a SIGCOV for this game. The second source, hmmm, not sure if it is reliable or not, borderline (a niche website but run by 2+ people, and the article is from another one). Likewise, the last page, Geek & Sundry, is a similar niche, and the coverage there is rather short. I don't think this game is notable - it exists, got covered by a very minor website and mentioned in passing by two others. That's below my GNG bar, but of course, you have the right to disagree. Thanks for the effort digging up the sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also reading the machine translation. It is 3 paragraphs about the context for the creation of the game we are discussing.  It's reliable and about this topic.  Not about the details of the game, but the context of its creation.  Something that would very much belong in a Wikipedia article on this topic.  Your point about Flames Rising is valid (evolution of its statement on editorial control) but again, this is a game review.  Do you have any actual doubts about that review being accurate?  I'd not use it for a BLP, but for a review?  It's fine.  Feel free to bring to RSN if you feel otherwise.  Hobit (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit, though I'm sympathetic to concerns about scope -- the article needs improvement, but the sources given can improve it, and by extension deletion is not indicated. Vaticidalprophet 21:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit, and I also agree with Vati on the need for improvement. BOZ (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: As per the above keep votes. Alphaonekannan (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have opened a discussion about Flames Rising on RSN as suggested by Hobit, here. Would be good to get a definitive consensus as the source is currently cited in 70 articles across Wikipedia.
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Neither Geek + Sundry nor Flamerising, the only two sources available to provide notability, meet the criteria required to provide notability according to GNG. Guidelines are very clear that self-published sources like these can not be used to confer notability on an article in terms of WP:SIGCOV. Almost all websites "except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations)" are to be considered self-published. There really is not much room for debate here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Geek & Sundry is an actual news media organization which focuses on a pop culture niche, not a self-published fanzine/blog like Flamesrising. The issue here though is their coverage of the product isn't significant enough. Haleth (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the split votes and an open RSN discussion as to a source, an extension seems valid

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: can be improved —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Even if the two or three cites mentioned above are reliable, the information in them about this game is so trivial/not-notable that it certainly does not indicate significant coverage. Therefore, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks significant coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:58, 21 June 2021 (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.