Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.A.T.A.L. (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 delete. After weighing up the opinions on both sides, I see a consensus to delete here. Many of those arguing "keep" failed to give reasons why the sources provided were reliable. Others did not base their arguments on policy or the article at all, only basing their vote on the fact that they knew it, so I discounted those completely. Those commenting to delete backed their arguments and gave well-reasoned opinions, hence this close. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable, ephemeral roleplaying game. While I can attest that the game's existence was a heavily debated subject on a particular online forum, the article is sourced almost exclusively from that forum, and so fails WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not remotely sold that it clears any notability bar. There are zero Google News hits for the subject, and no evidence that print sources exist discussing it. What elements of WP:N would anyone like to claim this fulfills?  Ravenswing  15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. I may stubbify this during discussion due to the amount of contentious material attributed to a living person based on non-RS. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, good point; I'm normally extremely loth to edit an article under AfD, but BLP's pretty plain.  Ravenswing  23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There are independent reviews listed as sources, (whether they are high enough quality is another issue.)  This game is notorious for how bad it is, but that may not transfer to Wikipedia notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: They don't, and I'm a heavy patron of one of the forums listed. Anyone can submit a review on RPGnet, and there's no factchecking involved except for comments from the vox populi.  Meeting WP:RS it doesn't.   Ravenswing  08:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep widely known as the worst RPG ever. If this is non-notable, then what is?  Grue   20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Great. Source the assertion to a reliable source, as Wikipedia policy requires.   Ravenswing  21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - not notable Smappy (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notably infamous among RPG hobbyists. Check this review, or this one, or here.  Or here or here.  The poor prose of the reviews is unfortunately typical of RPG coverage on the web and commenters shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that there are other, better presented sites on this topic which are notable by their absence.  On a more practical level, it's notable enough that if it's deleted you're going to see enthusiasts keep recreating it for years to come, so you're better spent on getting this version up to standard rather than revisiting it every six months or so in AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above - as far as web searches goes, this is it. There isn't any great authoritative editorially controlled site on RPGs in existence that we could reasonably expect to have covered this game.  Print RPG magazines (if you can get your hands on them) are by and large either mouthpieces for particular publishers or eclectic local interest rags and fanzines.  The only possible higher indicator of notability you'd see for an RPG is it winning an annual award or being picked up by a major publisher, neither of which leave room for games which are notable for being bad. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. There is this curious notion floating around Wikipedia is that if reliable sources don't exist for a subject, the provisions of WP:V should somehow be suspended.  Nonsense; WP:V holds clearly that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  RPGs aren't exempted from the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N.  Blog reviews that are poorly written, self-submitted and unedited don't signify that we should accept poorly written, self-submitted and unedited blog reviews as reliable sources; it's why we don't accept such submissions as reliable sources in the first place.   Ravenswing  11:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is relative; the purpose of WP:V is to establish whether a source that makes a claim can be trusted to be accurate in that claim. The fact being sourced here, however, is that an opinion exists - in this case, that FATAL is so notably bad as to be a meme within the RPG community.  WP:V isn't relevant here because the linked source is itself the opinion, much as in the same way as the statement "A video of a cat can be found on YouTube" can be sourced by linking to the video on YouTube.  We don't care whether the person filming the cat fact-checked the cat or was subject to editorial control; the mere fact of the video's existence supports, in this case, the claim.  Besides, I refer again to my practicality argument - it will require less work on the part of the Wikipedia community to get this article right now than it will to keep taking it back to AfD each time it gets re-created.  It may not be a victory in principle but it will be one in real terms. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And if the article was about the opinion, then yes, a case could be made that a source about that opinion might be valid for it. This article is not about any controversy about FATAL, but about FATAL itself, and therefore sources which fail to meet the reliability bar are invalid.  In this particular case, you're claiming that the subject is notable solely because some blog posts yell at it, which is a desperately low bar to notability; m That being said, that there's a ready remedy to non-notable subjects being recreated after deletion, presuming there's any such problem.  It isn't as if we don't have an active deletion process, despite the risk that someone might choose to recreate the many articles deleted every day.   Ravenswing  16:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( X! ·  talk )  · @183  · 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no reliable sources to show the notability of this. None of the sources given constitute a reliable source. If we had to rely on a user submitted review on amazon to try and show notability for a book there wouldn't even be any debate about it. This is no different. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete claims like "worst ever" and allegations of racism and misogyny against a living person would require some really rock-solid sources backing them up. Not only doesn't this article do so, it can't even manage regular reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep reviews cause it to meet WP:N. BLP issues probably need to go however. (I'll tackle that now unless someone has already done so). Hobit (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Strongly suggest closing admin look at the references, none of which appear reputable. Beyond that, absolutely no sources found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit, my primary objection here is that I've heard of it and I'd considered its notoriety a matter of public knowledge. It's personally notorious among gamers I know and internet communities I frequent.  I know what policy says about the worth of that argument, and I'm using it only in the sense that despite Google searches not returning hugely reliable sources, I have reason to suspect that reliable sources nevertheless exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As another argument totally without substantive value, note that typing "Byron Hall F" into Google returns the suggestion "Byron Hall Fatal", which again leads to a reasonable suspicion that notability exists which we're merely having trouble locating the sources for. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN. Prove that there are sources, not that there might be some. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall a statement in policy that where reliable sources establishing notability are suspected to exist, but cannot be easily located (often a problem in foreign-language or esoteric subjects) the community should hesitate to delete, especially where the statements in the article are themselves uncontroversial. However, I confess I'm unable to find that reference and even if I were there'd be a question as to whether this falls in that category.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found it at WP:FAILN - "It is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. [...] If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources."  Which isn't quite as strong as I hoped or remembered but is at least relevant for consideration. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right that the guideline's relevant for consideration, but considering it does your position no favors; do you consider it likely that any coverage can be found in reliable, independent sources, never mind "significant" coverage? That's the sole relevant definition of notability here, not whether those of us who participate in a particular Internet forum know about it, which is in the same category as an WP:IKNOWIT argument.   Ravenswing  13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- regretfully. The sources include a blog, a wiki and the game itself: none of which is sufficient. The only other source is a lengthy review from rpg.net, and I am not convinced they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And since attempts to find more stuff have failed, I am forced to conclude that deletion is the only option. I say regretfully, because the review I just mentioned is extremely funny. Go read it. Reyk  YO!  12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The reliability of the sources is extremely dubious, meaning anything coming from a secondary source is not verified, so we have problems with original research, lack of notability and neutrality. If sources are found then there's nothing stopping the article being brought back. The question of notability was brought up on the article talk page more than 6 months ago, which is more than enough time for someone to have a good look for sources if they were so inclined. Someoneanother 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Game of some infamy in the RPG community - requiresd an additional source other than RPG.net of course, I;ve added the resuce tag accordingly in the hope that sources can be found. Artw (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2010 (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.