Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phage Press


 * 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 redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Redirect seems the obvious consensus, but whether to redirect to the company or the individual is a bit more problematic. I judge consensus to be to the company, but this could be further discussed and the redirect modified if necessary. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Phage Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a company is sourced to Wikipedia itself, the company's own website, a defunct page called "guardiansorder.com", and a marignally RS book. A BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails to establish notability for this subject.TH1980 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * '''Merge and Redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game
 * Per WP:BEFORE C.4, the nominator is to consider merging and redirection if an appropriate target exists. Per the cornerstone editing policy WP:PRESERVE, it is preferable to preserve than to delete sourced content. While it might be possible to bring this article to GNG standards using additional sources, the lasting encyclopedic interest is more likely to be in the major cultural product of the company, the highly influential Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, than in the defunct company itself. Therefore the Nom should, per policy, have proposed this merger but neglected to do so. This will be the most appropriate close. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'd agree with redirecting, but the sources for Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game aren't impressive: dicelessbydesign.com, drivethrurpg.com, kickstarter.com, rpg.drivethrustuff.com, sjgames.com, therpgsite.com. Vexations (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Maybe it would be possible to merge into the Erick Wujcik article if the Diceless Roleplaying Game article doesn't work for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
 * Good point, Vexations. I'll nominate Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game for deletion after this closes if no one else has done so by then. Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Vexations, while I would be happy to add sources to the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article, it already has reviews in Pyramid (a Reliable Source magazine independent of Phage Press) and in the independently published book Hobby Games: the 100 Best. Therefore, there is no risk of the reliably sourced Phage Press information being lost in a Merge to Amber Diceless. Newimpartial (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think it would be best if you want to make sure that Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game is a good target for a Phage Press redirect, that you add all the reliable sources you can find. I'm not sure that t we have any reliably sourced Phage Press information: There are four sources: Appelcline, which I don't have acccess to (the nearest library with a copy is 400 miles away), but I notice it has been used in more than 20 other articles [0&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A"first%3D+Shannon|last%3D+Appelcline"&advancedSearch-current={}]. The others though, I'm not convinced: Wujcik, is published by the subject, "Guardians Of Order's New Year's Message" is a dead link and then Phage's own website. Vexations (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Appelcline is also available online at various storefronts, but in any event, the RSN discussion showing its reliability is here. Pyramid (magazine) was a print magazine in the period of numbered issues 2 and 6 when these reviews appeared; it was published by Steve Jackson Games with a professional editorial staff (led by Derek Pearcey and Scott Marsh for the issues in question) and was entirely independent of Phage Press and Amber. Hobby Games: The 100 Best is also a clearly independent and reliable source, published by Green Ronin and authored by Nicole Lindroos, neither of whom were connected in any way to Amber. As documented in the article, Amber Diceless was also reviewed in Dragon, Challenge, White Wolf and Shadis, all of which are RS independent of Phage Press and Amber. NBOOK and the GNG are therefore clearly met (eight independent RS) for the proposed target article, Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, without adding further sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was talking about sources used in Phage Press, you seem to be talking about Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. If you have sources, please add them to the relevant article. I'm willing to assume, in good faith, that Applecline is a reliable source. That's one reliable source for this article. Vexations (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But for a Merge !vote per PRESERVE, which I am making and which this thread is discussing, the number of RS for the article being merged is irrelevant to the decision to Merge, per policy. Even if the only sourced content on Phage Press consisted of SPS, which it does not, a Merge would still be the most appropriate close per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE, so long as a Notable and appropriate target is found for the Merge, The Notability of an Article's subject is only relevant at AfD to its standing as a separate article (keep vs. Delete), not to its being merged and discussed in another article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The (potential) sources for Phage Press matters, because we need to decide if there's any content that can be preserved by merging. Vexations (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, content must be sourced to be Merged, but the sources need not meet Notability standards, only the core Verifiability policy. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF (part of WP:V) specifies that sources published by an article's subject are considered reliable for information concerning the article's subject, subject to certain conditions (with none of these conditions applying here, AFAICT). Similarly, per WP:PRIMARY (another core policy), Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Yet neither sources published by an article's subject, nor sources covered by PRIMARY, count towards Notability for purposes of Keep or Delete !votes at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Hobby Games: the 100 Best specifically, as I don't have access to the book, but generally from what I remember top-lists like "100 best whatever" aren't considered good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no basis to Keep this article. Having sources that are WP:RS is only a small part of the criteria for references to establish notability and the references fail, for example, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic should be deleted - anything interesting can be put into the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article.  HighKing++ 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't be against a redirect to Erick Wujcik but I don't see any point in redirecting to the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article.  HighKing++ 15:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the closer, please note that neither of the above recent !votes have given consideration to the Merge and Redirect arguments (including PRESERVE). Per policy, then, these are not valid as Delete arguments - they are essentially just anti-Keep arguments and cease to be relevant as soon as a Keeo outcome is ruled out. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns with an additional comment above. I'm against a redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game and slightly more inclined towards a redirect to Erick Wujcik.  HighKing++ 15:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, I am a bit confused here because according to the article, the company is best known for publishing the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game and I belive Erick Wujcik has a significant role in the development of the game, not the company. Can you please elaborate if I am missing something? Regards, KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't believe this company is "best known" for anything so you have to ask where the best fit is for any worthwhile information. Having read the article on Erick Wujcik and taking into consideration that it already contains a good amount of information on the company, I believe a redirect (if one has to happen - personally, I would just delete the article and not do a redirect) is best suited to the founder and author of most everything the company published.  HighKing++ 15:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Not enough to have a standalone article on this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:07, 2 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.