Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Buffalo


 * 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 keep. (SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Flying Buffalo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Relies entirely on self-published sources. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have a book with an entire chapter on this company. I will try to start sourcing the article tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the only major shortcoming I see with the article is the reliance on self-published sources. Your contributions would be worthwhile.  Kaszeta (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I started on it, but don't have the time to finish up today - should be enough to see where I am going with it, since the chapter on Flying Buffalo is 8-pages long, and now we have sources for a bunch of awards and other things. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This Google search shows plenty of coverage in reliable sources going back over four decades.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for so many reasons that this should be a Procedural Keep. Web Warlock (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has won 20 Origins wards in the last 40 years. Plenty reason to Keep. Web Warlock (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article contains numerous indications of notability. See WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work, but the subject matter is clearly notable in the world of gaming. Kaszeta (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This company produced the 2nd Role-Playing Game (1st if you're in Europe), has won multiple awards and still has a strong fanbase. It's ludicrous that this article should be deleted.  So it's self-published - as far as I'm concerned, it earned the right to be on this wiki decades ago (as of this writing FBI is ramping up to produce Deluxe Tunnels and Trolls, the 8th Edition of that venerable game).  • SmokestackJones (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We can have a notable, award-winning game system but that would not make the company/designer that made it necessarily notability (that's inherited notability and we don't use that). That's not to say that it appears sources to exist per Boz to make the company notability. --M ASEM  (t) 18:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This company may be obscure, but it is definitely notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article definitely looks to pass notability now not to mention, winning several awards consistent over 3 decades. Huge improvement since the nomination for sure. A Google News search proves in the first two pages that there is good media coverage. The article for the founder and game has references but if they're still not notable, we can always redirect them to this article if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  20:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOW time, per essentially all of the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2013 (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.