Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of live-action role-playing groups


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

List of live-action role-playing groups

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of non-notable clubs of a specific type of game. I CSD'd just about everything there, except for maybe 3 articles which did mention the corresponding club in a 3rd party source that was not a passing mention. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 08:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep a number of the groups mentioned have strong evidence of notability in terms of media coverage, see both their articles and the citations at the bottom of the list for items that don't have articles yet. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I viewed the list, and about 60 percent of the items had no sources that met our policy, WP:SOURCE. Now, about 60 percent of those articles are deleted.  A catagory would fit this much better than a list.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  /Improve 11:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further Only one single source provided is verifiable and follows policy, and notability requires significant coverage.  A single news source is not significant.   One of the sources provided does not follow policy, as it is not independent of the subject, the rest are in different languages, which does not follow WP:V, meaning they must be in english to be verifiable if they are to be used on the english wikipedia.— Dæ dαlus Contribs  /Improve 11:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's true that some of the subjects listed have no evidence of notability, and removing them from the list would be warrented. That doesn't warrent the deletion of the list, because a number do have evidence of notability. You have marked some of the articles on notable subjects for speedy deletion, and some of those deletions will now be contested, so it seems premature to claim the articles don't exist. Citations being in foreign languages does not negate verifiability, please read WP:NONENG more closely. English sources are preferred, but not required if the only sources available are non-English. Neither does it negate notability. Are all subjects that are mostly notable only in Germany or France not sufficiently notable for the English wikipedia? No, they are notable, language is not a barrier to notability. This list operates better as a list than a category, as it allows room for brief descriptions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is superior to a category as it can provide brief summaries; a simple list is inferior.  Now, if the list were to be depopulated it would obviously cease to be relevant.  But it's not depopulated yet.  Wait until you've successfully deleted them, then kill the category. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To anyone investigating who notes that most of the links to full articles are dead: about a dozen were just CSDed for failing to claim notability and deleted today. I believe the deletions were in error; many of the articles did note why the groups in question were notable, but failed to make it clear to a casual review or to someone unfamiliar with LARPs.  I would expect at least a half-dozen to be back soon. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The brunt of the articles that I nom'd did not cite any references.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps I'm overlooking it, but WP:CSD doesn't appear to list "lack of references" as grounds for speedy deletion. More core point stands: the list was only recently depopulated. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, it does: They failed to assert why they were notable. Notability is derived from reliable 3rd-party sources that are independent of the subject.  Since there were no 3rd-party sources that were independent of the subject, no notability is asserted, and therefore they are subject to A7.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  /Improve 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan is correct in stating that lacking references does not qualify an article for CSD. The CSD page says under A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") that "This is distinct from questions of verifiability". If I write an article which says "Mr. Foo is an author whose books have sold millions of copies and won the Booker prize" when he is not, then I have asserted notability which saves it from A7; however, since the claims can't be backed up by sources it fails verifiability and can be deleted at AfD. The two concepts are independent. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Olaf is right. I would encorage an admin to check out any speedy deletions based on Daedalus' misinterpretation of CSD, and to report back the extent to which any of them are genuine A7s. AndyJones (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a mis-understanding of the policy, but I will admit a wrong action for a CSD. As to the CSDs, even if my reasons were wrong, they were my reasons.  The deleting admin was following policy correctly, and deleted my nominations accordingly.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  /Improve 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "I don't have a mis-understanding of the policy, but I will admit a wrong action for a CSD". You appear to be saying you DO understand the policy but you misapplied it deliberately. Is that what you mean? If not, what do you mean? Either way I stand my my suggestion that an admin looks these over to see if they are genuine A7s. AndyJones (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, an admin already looked over these, just look at the deleting admin's userpage. Some of the articles that I nom'd were declined a speedy, but most were deleted under what an admin saw classified as A7.  As so my knowledge of the policy, no, I did not make a mistake on purpose, that is what a mistake is, an error in judgment.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  /Improve 09:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins have been known to make mistakes. Usually through haste and carelessness, to which they are as susceptible as anyone else.  A few have even been known to speedy articles based on misinterpretations of policy. (And there is even the possibility that one or two might be deliberately deleting on the basis of what they think the policy ought to be, and relying on not being challenged effectively. ) The reason they don't harm the encyclopedia as much as one might think is that we also rely on editors in general to be careful in their speedy nominations. It's rash here or anywhere to do potentially harmful things without knowing the rules and trust that those in authority will correct one's mistakes. DGG (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be more careful in the future.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Few if any of the groups listed are notable enough for articles. If any of them are, they should probably be discussed in the main LARP article.  Just because something is a list doesn't mean it doesn't require reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless you're claiming that there is no such thing a notable LARP group, which I think is ridiculous. If there are non-notable groups listed then delete those entries, not the entire list.  At a glance though I think a bunch of those that were deleted via CSD should have gone via AfD as I'm pretty sure I've seen mainstream news references to some of them.Kmusser (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous notable groups in this list and I endorse the comments above that this deletion spree is improper and should be reverted. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are thousands of LARP groups in the world, and all could potentially be added to this list, making it an indiscriminate directory of LARP groups. This is in violation with WP:NOT. Arsenikk (talk)  21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Not indiscriminate. Only the notable ones will be included. Almost all such groups in the world are in fact not actually notable, and can make no plausible case otherwise. I've deleted a number myself. The ones that pass will be suitable for the list. This argument can be applied equally wrongly to any list: "we should have no list of mathematicians, because most mathematicians are not notable." Equally true & equally irrelevant, for we remove articles on the ones who are not. )DGG (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (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.