Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ork! The Roleplaying Game


 * 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. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ork! The Roleplaying Game

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this game is notable. Fails WP:NBOOK and related. PROD declined as "there are reviews", but I see only a single borderline one, the cited Pyramid review, and while I might accept Pyramid as reliable, even its own website describes it (for that period) as an online zine. I tried to find a way to access that review, but as far as I can tell it is neither offered legally or illegally. I am not sure if it is even properly archived anywhere, it may be 'gone'. That of course is not relevant in itself, through it means this with no other sources, this will remain a stub for a foreseeable future (but again, the fact that this review may no longer exist in this world doesn't mean the article should be deleted). The problem is, this seems to be the best source we have, and that's just not enough. I tried looking for other reviews, but all I found (and I've added it to external links) was one blog and one entry at RPGnet, which is as far as I can tell equivalent to either a forum-review, a blog, or a wiki ("Edit this Review"). As such, I am afraid this fails NBOOK and such, since all we have is one borderline reliable review (in Pyramid, with the stress on borderline reliable, as online zines are not top quality sources), and with the two other reviews being inacceptable (blog/forum=WP:SPS) this fails at NBOOK/GNG requirement or 'in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Some games are significant for the history of the genre, or for their own reception, awards, etc. I am afraid I am not seeing much to help save this, but maybe someone else can did anything? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Pyramid was an on-line gaming magazine published by Steve Jackson Games (SJG) that provided independent in-depth reviews of games not published by SJG. While it is sad that many articles are now hidden behind a paywall, it is still RS. Guinness323 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Guinness323 that Pyramid was a high-quality source. It's not relevant whether we personally can't access a source right now on our laptops without getting up from our chairs. Sources aren't "gone" when we can't immediately access them. People have copies of old gaming magazines; if the sources exist in the world, then the subject passes WP:NEXIST. The only thing that makes a source "gone" for the purposes of this AfD discussion is if people who own those magazines don't discover or understand the fairly arcane practices of AfD discussions, between now and next week. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments or merge to Green Ronin Publishing since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the current form of the article has multiple RS and clearly meets NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been significantly expanded since the nomination (thank you User:Guinness323). I cannot access the Hungarian review added (the page doesn't load for me). If it is reliable (not a blog orforum) then it might be sufficient to meet GNG requirement for multiple sources. Unfortunately, as I said, the page does not want to open for me, so I cannot review it myself (if I could confirm it is reliable, I would consider withdrawing this nom). PS. But given the low quality of the two other reviews I've found and linked in external sources, I cannot AGF the Hungarian page I cannot access as high quality, but I invite those who can open it to review it here. I'll note that the two other sources added to the article mention this game only in passing and as such are not sufficient to help to establish notability, one seems to be not much better than a press release anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm happy to accept that Pyramid is a reliable source, but none of the other references or external links in the article strike me as likely to be reliable, and a single reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:MUSTBESOURCES isn't a convincing argument: if "people have copies of old gaming magazines" that contain reviews or other coverage, they ought to have been able to provide at least minimal evidence of that coverage's existence by now. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Applecline's Designers & Dragons is an independent, carefully researched and footnoted book published by a reputable publisher (not self published). Totally RS. Guinness323 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What does it have to say about the subject of the article though? It's used to support a specific claim; there's no indication in the article that it contains significant coverage and no one's suggested it does in this discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you do see your own inconsistency here; previously you said "none of the other references ... strike me as likely to be reliable", and when it was pointed out to you that one of them actually is, you moved your goalpost to WP:SIGCIV, which is an entirely different argument. To answer your question, Appelcline mentions the article's subject several times, uses its cover as the title art for a chapter on the game's publisher, and notes that, coming out as it did before John Wick (game designer)'s Orkworld, it was one of several headwinds against the success of the latter game. So I am, in fact, suggesting that this coverage documents the notability of the subject, and we clearly have multiple RS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No goalpost-moving intended – I simply got the facts slightly wrong in my !vote (I should have said something like "likely to constitute significant coverage in a reliable source" instead of "likely to be reliable"), then requested clarification when this was pointed out. I'm not able to access the source, nor am I convinced by your description of it that it meets the standard I'd expect, but I appreciate the clarification. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My job, here as with The Everlasting, is simply to describe the sources as they actually are. If you or Piotrus choose to misinterpret or apply idiosyncratic standards to sources, that is for you to do and for the closer, per policy, to ignore. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The closer might equally find "Appelcline ... uses its cover as the title art for a chapter" to be an idiosyncratic standard for what constitutes significant coverage – I certainly do! – but there's little value in trying to divine their will. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice use of quotation out of context. Do you do that often? Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear enough again – my previous comment was intended to suggest that I don't think there's any point in discussing this further. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2020 (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.