Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo Rules System (RPG)


 * 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   merge to Polymancer. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mojo Rules System (RPG)

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

Non notable video game. All sources appear to be primary sources. Non notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, it's a system for dice roleplaying, not a video game. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible, if not likely, that Shadowjams's allegation of non-notability is based on Shadowjams not knowing what kind of a game Mojo is, even. It is recommended that more people,w ho are actually familiar with non-computer RPGs, examine this article in order to evaluate its notability because in all likelihood, this person is not qualified. — A lizard (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: The subject matter is no more, and no less, notable than any other RPG rules system. The fact that it is published in print makes it more so than many (e.g. Reign); that it is unique for being published as a serial of magazine articles actually makes it unique among RPGs. If the "no primary sources only" limit was applied to every article about every RPG in Wikipedia, then the only RPG with a Wikipedia article would be Dungeons & Dragons. Most RPGs, if they are discussed at all, are only discussed in forums, in blogs, in podcasts, and in wikis. Based on this, any allegation of "non-notability" of an RPG is based more on the personal subjectivity of the individual who makes such an allegation, rather than facts. Non-primary source have added to the article since the deletion tag was added. — A lizard (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think you'd struggle to justify just D&D remaining if this article were deleted. It strikes me that there are numerous systems with some notability (Call of Cthulhu, Traveller (impact on Elite for example), MERP etc...) as well as a lot with little or no notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Polymancer as that's where it seems to have originated from, unless substantial notability can be shown. At present I really don't see this notablity: it strikes me that this is a product that came out of their zine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Lizard's right, I don't know much about the game, but I also know I'm not able to find any WP:RS on my initial search. If there are some available, please include them. Right now I see quite a few primary sources, including its announcement, and then links to rpg.net and a few other similar websites. I'm unsure those sources are WP:RS or are separate enough from the subject matter to count as third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete while there's some evidence of secondary coverage, the only independent coverage seems to be from the sort of inclusive directory that doesn't usually count towards WP:N. A merge would be acceptable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Deletion is certainly not warranted as a merge/redirect to Polymancer is certainly viable. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (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.