Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issaries, Inc.


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Issaries, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a defunct corporation has zero references (a link purporting to be a reference is actually its defunct homepage). A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) finds only one passing mention. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Greg Stafford. I may not have the time today, but there is a whole chapter on the company in Designers & Dragons that I can pull from. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, as part of my !vote I noted there was a source to be added, which I did. Although, I would like to hear more about what Newimpartial found in Pyramid, as that may be very relevant to the discussion but was glossed over or perhaps just missed; was it this excerpt you found, or something else? BOZ (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - the chapter in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons is pp. 53-68, and is dedicated entirely to Issaries. The company was also discussed in other reliable sources such as "Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries", Volume 2 of Pyramid and Geeknative, exemplified by this article and this one.
 * A foolish nomination; the nominator should review WP:NOTTEMPORARY as well as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Also, quite tactless to place the nomination so soon after Greg Stafford's death but I will AGF regardless, as is required. Still, speedy keep, please. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The two links you provided to articles on "geeknative.com" - per the About page, it is "a blog for gamers" . It lists only a single writer (Andrew Girdwood), and a quick run of it through Google News finds that its reporting has not, itself, been referenced by unambiguously RS sources. Finally, it has no published offline presence, such as a physical address, that it could accept liability for its content. By every possible definition, it is a personal hobby blog, WP:RSSELF applies, and it is not RS. The Designers & Dragons reference is fine - I suppose - however, companies require significant coverage. Mere proof that a company exists (or existed) is not evidence of notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chetsford, a 15-page chapter in Designers & Dragons is significant coverage in terms of that source, not "proof of existence" (for which a catalogue would be sufficient). Please don't be daft.
 * Geeknative is exemplary of source self-published by a recognized expert in the field, recognized through their publication in recognized reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can understand the nomination, but it sounds like the sources are there and fairly solid. Withdraw maybe? Hobit (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hobit - I appreciate the suggestion, but I would dispute that a reference in a single book meets our standards of significant coverage for profitmaking companies. The two mentions on "geeknative.com" are not, in my opinion, anywhere in the the same galaxy as RS. If this were submitted, tomorrow, as a new article to AFC it would have a roughly zero chance of making it through. (For instance, here's a company article that was correctly rejected by both KylieTastic and Curb Safe Charmer; with coverage in TechCrunch and Bloomberg it is more thoroughly referenced and the subject of more expansive coverage than this article but it still - quite rightly - does not meet the community's commonly held criteria of what constitutes significant coverage for an organization. As of now we only have proof "Issaries, Inc." may have once existed. That is a different standard than whether it is "notable" (i.e. prominent, worthy of note or acclaim, the subject of widespread scrutiny).) Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chetsford, please try to be both CIVIL and cogitative - if you were to read the 15-page chapter in Designers & Dragons, you would see a thoughtful history of the company's history and contribution, which goes well beyond "proof of existence" - I am quite confident that there is no 15-page treatment of AccelFoods in any independently published dead tree book, anywhere.
 * And you seem to have missed a key distinction when you brought up AfC. Of course the current, unsourced article would not pass AfC. Nor should it. AfC is a vehicle for improving draft articles before they are made public, and it doesn't accept unsourced stubs, which is what we have here.
 * However, except for BLP's, being an unsourced stub is not grounds for deletion, nor should it be. The question is the *existence* of RS, which has been amply demonstrated here. Also, your comments "not in the same galaxy as RS" - "may have once existed" are quite unCIVIL and lacking in good faith. Please stop choosing such disruptive language. Newimpartial (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  21:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable games company. Being defunct is utterly irrelevant to its notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Granting nominator his wish to relist to get a conclusive consensus to keep the article. The last 2 keep votes haven't brought any guidelines or sources mentions to address the nomination.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I also found 'Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries', which could be added as a reference, and P&P-Rollenspiel: der kollektive Zugang zu utopischen Weltentwürfen und individuellen Phantasie-Konstrukten (which states that Issaries was founded in 1997 - the date the share offer was issued?). The external link is defunct, but this has the company information. I would add that my searches bring up results which have no previews, or to which I don't have access, however, there does appear to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If not, then merge to Greg Stafford. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. So ...
 * Logos Verlag is a predatory / pay for play publisher.
 * "The Stafford Codex" says it is run by Greg Stafford, the apparent owner of this company.
 * We really need to be more attentive to vetting sources and try to avoid just throwing up a bunch of Google search results which is how most of these RPG AFDs go. It creates the outward appearance of a well-sourced topic that withers at the slightest scrutiny of the actual sources. While sources like "geeknative.com" and "staffordcodex.com" may be fine for Everipedia, they aren't for this thing - Wikipedia. So as of now it seems we have a reference in a book (Designers & Dragons) which the RSN has been unable to reach a consensus as to its reliability, a two-line reference in a book from a predatory publisher, a couple posts on something called "geeknative.com", and the owner of the company's own website (or "codex" as he calls it). The only RS here is Dragons in the Stacks (which I'll have to take on GF since it's offline) ... a single RS does not a notable company make. If this were any other corporation - an industrial dry cleaner, or a typewriter manufacturer - it would have been stamped closed and delete no ifs, ands, or buts. The standards of significant coverage for game companies are exactly the same as the standards for industrial dry cleaners. Mere proof of existence is not proof of notability. Chetsford (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not proposing the "Stafford Codex" link as a source, but as a replacement external link for the broken one. You have not mentioned the article 'Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries', which appeared in the professional librarians' journal Collection Building. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "You have not mentioned the article 'Dragons in the stacks" ... no, actually, I did: "the only RS here is Dragons in the Stacks" . That this was missed underscores, I believe, my appeal for greater caution and attention to be paid in approaching AFDs on many of these highly suspect RPG articles that have been air-dropped en masse on WP. (e.g. I would love to AfD Greg Stafford but I know it would never pass because it's been crammed full of 13 fluff sources like personal websites, company blogs of little basement game designers, fanzines, etc. ... not one of them is RS, but we have some editors who are just doing a quick scan of articles to see if it looks somewhat legit rather than subjecting the sources to policy-based scrutiny.) Chetsford (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would love to AfD Greg Stafford but I know it would never pass - and the reason it would never pass, Chetsford, has nothing to do with "fluff sources", and everything to do with policy. Per AFD, what matters is not the sources used in the article, but the available sources. Per GNG, Greg Stafford and his work are discussed in multiple, independent, reliable dead tree sources as well as multiple online RS. Per AUTHOR, he produced multiple award-winning works that have been extensiVely reviewed in RS - and if he has produced even one such work meeting NBOOK he would meet NAUTHOR so long as the biographical sources exist, which they do, in spades.
 * Your jihad against RPG articles is completely against policy, thinly veiled by your misreading of AFD and strongly motivated by IDONTLIKEIT, as demonstrated especially in your Monica Valentinelli AfD (the second) and the Hillfolk AfD you launched in response to my citing the petitioner / grantor mechanic from Dramasystem as am insight into actual Wikidrama. Your Quixotic crusade against such articles, Chet, is doing you no favors either to your hit rate or to your reputation. Making snide remarks about recently deceased and well-beloved creators is not a great look on you, I think. Newimpartial (talk)

Comment: I will state here that the nominator failed again to get another supporting delete vote, this time after two weeks involving a relist, so in my mind the initial close was once again valid, and upon relist the first new respondent was another Keep. By the way, this comment was pure comedy gold on the part of the nominator: "my objective is never to get an article deleted" - uhhh, then why the strong focus on deletion rather than discussion? AFD is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Discussion. Discussion is done on an article's talk page, or a wikiproject talk page, or a user's talk page, or RSN, or something like that. If you bring an article to AFD without doing anything like that, then yes, your objective IS to get an article deleted, so "never" seems highly facetious and fallacious in this context based on my experiences with you and the many AFDs you have started, and the far smaller number of pure discussions I have seen you start. Your comment above of how you "would love to AfD Greg Stafford but I know it would never pass" is very telling in this regard. (Ugh, and I'm sure people wonder why I don't usually bother debating deletionists... what is the point, when they are usually so single-minded in the hunt for more things to delete.) BOZ (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, thanks to BOZ sourcing the core information. /Julle (talk) 23:47, 17 November 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.