Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokéthulhu


 * 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pokéthulhu
No "multiple, non-trivial" secondary sources to speak of on covering this game. THe article links to the home page (not a valid source) and a wiki (hardly reliable). Talk page shows a GameSpy page, but GameSpy themselves did not make the page, and the RPG review is only one site. Prod removed without a reason. hbdragon88 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Did what I could for the article, adding references to two reviews, and mention of the spinoff line of Steve Jackson Games miniatures.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article could certainly be beefed up, and subcultural notability is often an iffy thing to establish, but I think this one's got enough.  Ford MF 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Maybe a bit of an expansion but notable. It is said the review is only one site, but that one site is RPG.net the largest RPG site in the world. It should also be noted when looking for information that more people spell it Pokethulhu than Pokéthulhu. I've added another review link. Ben W Bell   talk  07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, personally. What notability criteria can miss out on, when interpreted too strictly, is the mass of encyclopediac use that effectively amounts to "what the heck is _____?"  While a quick browse of the topic on the internet shows sites like gamespy.com basically advertising the game, rpg.net reviews the game.  I suppose that latter counts as a notable source, though I'm not sure just how to work it into the article.  I don't see how deleting this improves wikipedia, though, & oppose on that basis alone.  --mordicai. 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: the above copied from the article's talk page. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I explicitly rebutted the GameSpy bit, though not in great detail. GameSpy offers hosting (I've seen PsyPokes hosted on GameSpy), there is an application process for it.  That makes that all GameSpy links must be treated with care.  In this particular case, it looks like a personal site, which isn't reliable.  Also makes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:HARMLESS arguments. hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable (if very niche) RPG, with a number of notable people involved, including Kovalic. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You mention "notable" three times withotu defining it. Who are the notable people involved in it?  If it's notable enough, wouldn't you think that it would have more coverage than the two sites it has currently? hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the involvement of John Kovalic, S. John Ross, minis bu Steve Jackson Games, and published by Dork Storm. More references would be better, sure, but what's in the article is adequate to support what's there. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't assert notability and doesn't seem to be very popular. DBZROCKS 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the article is referenced, it exists, etc., I say, give it more time to expand.  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * Nobody is denying that it exists. We're debating the notability of its existence, whether it deserves an article or not.  And it's been three years!  (I was surprised to see that it as started in February 2004.)  I doubt that this will gain more attention than it has now. hbdragon88 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Non-notable. Andre (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2007 (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.