Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazes and Minotaurs


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mazes and Minotaurs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Absolutely nothing establishing notability of this topic. It's a free online indie role-playing game with only minor mentions on the web. Certainly nothing like mainstream or expert coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, nothing relevant on google news or books, rpg.net reviews appear to be user-submitted. Polarpanda (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This articles is partly copied from the sources used, which cannot be seen as sources, and is totally non-notable and appears to be promotion. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I cna't find significant coverage for this web game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Save This game has a living Yahoogroup/community (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mazesandminotaurs/) and has been brought up twice recently on a very popular gaming blog (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/). Possible reference confusion with Mazes "and" Minotaurs and Mazes "&" Minotaurs?--forvalaka (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Save This game has a thriving (and growing) user-base and is a popular example of the current trend of Old School Role-Playing. (And, as for its reviews on rpg.net appearing to be user-submitted - all reviews on rpg.net are user-submitted, that's how rpg.net works).Johndesmarais (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But keep in mind that neither Yahoo nor rpg.net are neutral reliable sources, so you can't bring them up here. And even if this game has a growing community, it is not yet big enough to pass WP:N. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yahoo and rpg.net are not used here as *sources*, but evidence; if lots of people are talking about an artwork, that is evidence of its notability. There seems to be a fairly significant amount of discussion of the game in weblogs as well; since noncommercial games are not well covered by print magazines or academic journals, some leeway in detecting WP:N is common sense. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Save When dealing with a indie game, Yahoo and RPGNet.com ARE VERY IMPORTANT!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.4.168 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe in your head, but they're not encyclopedic, which is the important part for being listed here. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Save Actually you are mistaken regarding whether rpg.net is an appropriate source. Per WP:WEB we have:The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. Also, as this game is also published as an e-book, we have in WP:NOTABILITY (books) The criteria set forth below apply to books in electronic form (or e-books). However, the notability of e-books should also be evaluated using the notability criteria for web-specific content, as well as a determination of whether the book is covered by Project Gutenberg or an analogous project. Rpg.net is an important source in the context of an article about RPGs.  You might notice from its own article that it is itself considered notable enough for Wikipedia, besides RPGnet is the second largest roleplaying forum, after Wizards of the Coast.  And besides several articles in rpg.net, a quick google search unveils other articles on similar rpg sites. It is scheduled for OwlCon XXIX (referenced here) and Origins GameFair (referenced here). I think it is important to rate Notability in context, which is clearly at issue here.  The context here is Indie RPGs, and in that realm sources like RPG.net are particularly important. The fact that M&M is referenced by sites and associations which are considered notable for Wikipedia standards is notable.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding a previous complaint on this page, it would seem that neither of the reviews on Rpg.net were submitted by the creators, maintainers, or anyone associated with Mazes and Minotaurs.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifter0x0000 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, not to invoke the Pokémon test, but per the positive version of WP:OTHERSTUFF, you might note that there are many indie RPG articles on Wikipedia, and references used tend to include RPG.net and theRPGsite, if not using them exclusively. M&M was discussed on the latter (although I haven't tracked down a review of it there yet), and I have mentioned in my other posts the reviews in the former.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a Yahoogroup might not count content-wise, yet if there is an appropriate number of members, this should constitute a reasonable amount of popularity within the community. However, RPG.net not being neutral or reliable? I would question that statement. Also, a site like Grognardia is relevant and neutral, and has given reviews. I would suggest that rather than be stricken that Mazes & Minotaurs could be mentioned among other "retro-clone" or simulacrum games at the very least.--forvalaka (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the bold "Save" from the beginning of this comment so that it doesn't look like you are trying to vote twice. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would not have mattered anyway since Afd discussions are not votes. Outcome is based on the merit of the arguments provided. Putting Save or Delete in the comment would, I think, help a reviewer find arguments for each side more easily and is their main purpose. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge/Transfer I agree with the preceding comment that, while it may not by itself meet the recognition level to warrant a separte entry on Wikipedia, it certainly should be listed/merged with other pen and paper rpg articles already on WP, some of which are btw no longer played, recent/updated nor have the "following" evidenced by a simple Google web search about the game, which list 4 250 results for the exact wording "Mazes & Minotaurs RPG"; not bad considering the exact wording search for "retro clone rpg" gives out 12 500 results, while the whole "pen & paper rpg" category list 292 000 results. --Gebeji 142.213.176.140 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Save I came to the Wikipedia entry to find out more after reading an article on Futurismic. Clearly people are talking about this thing. Might as well have a definitive source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.122.235 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A few people talking about something on the Internet means nothing when trying to show something should have an encyclopedia article. By your standards every fart joke in the world should have its own listing. That's not how things work. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Futurismic article is here. I don't think articles on established websites for a subject are the same as "a few people talking on the internet."  And anyway, your criteria do not match WP:WEB, which would be the relevant policy here.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Several more reviews have been brought to my attention, so I am linking them for consideration at least on impact of the game in its field, if they cannot be considered sources. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made and will continue to make some improvements to the article, adding more links and references that can be used as potential sources. I think a better solution rather than deleting the article would be improving it, and adding sources which would tend to defend its notability. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Save/Merge/Transfer As this article seems to be destined to be deleted for reasons unknown (I have made more obscure Wikipedia entries that have not been marked for deletion), I move that this matter be taken up higher up the ladder than between editors. Obviously this article is targeted for deletion even after evidence (more evidence than for some other entries) has been provided. Let's take this up the ladder--forvalaka (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Actually, that's what this discussion is for. An admin will look at these arguments and decide consensus based on the arguments provided.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We wouldn't want to spoil the fun of Wiki-wanker nerds now would we?  Better they fuck up Wikipedia (further) than actually fuck up the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.172.72.224 (talk • contribs)  signed by    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:26, 19 January 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.