Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psionics (role-playing games)


 * 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. Consensus is that the WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  05:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Psionics (role-playing games)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page seems to be about "psychics" but was mis-titled as "psionics". While it is indeed called "psionics" in D&D, I'm not sure how true that is for all role playing games. Beyond that, it's almost entirely original research and trivia, and is unencyclopedic. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well-established element of the role-playing genre, comparable to, say, The Force (Star Wars) in films. A quick Google Books search returns thousands of potential sources to build from. bd2412  T 12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, what sources aren't WP:PRIMARY sources about the RPG itself or its rules, and that also are significant mentions about the use of psionics as a term? Keep in mind there is also already a Psionics (Dungeons & Dragons) article specifically about D&D usage (though that seems to have its own issues, like violating WP:GAMEGUIDE).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps start with MJ Tresca The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games, Fabian Perlini-Pfister's chapter in Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual Worlds, and Golub and Peterson's contribution to Tomilinson and Kāwika Tengan's New Mana: Transofrmations of a Classic Concept in Pacific Languages and Cultures (yes, really, they all deals with tabletop RPG psionics in detail). Those three by themselves are sufficient to meet the GNG.
 * Also, the nom doesn't seem to know much about tabletop roleplaying; these powers are called "psionics" thanks to the influence of Star Trek: The Original Series, and have had a continuing presence in Science-Fiction roleplaying since Traveller. The concept is not narrowly associated with D&D, and has received book-length treatment, e.g. for GURPS and Palladium RPGs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Detailed knowledge of the source material isn't required to judge an article. Otherwise, you are implying that the article is unencyclopedic fancruft that it would take an expert fan or player to understand. Some articles, like quantum physics, might take experts in the field to comprehend, but pop culture articles aren't one of them.
 * After searching in Google Books, I could only find trivial mentions of "psionics" in the Evolution of Fantasy Role Playing Games, although page 152 is missing, it certainly doesn't continue to page 153. All it mentions is that psionics is another form of magic points. In "Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual Worlds", psionics get a passing mention as a different name for psychic powers. I can't even find it in "New Mana" at all, so it must not be included in Google Books.
 * You should not conflate primary and secondary sources. Book length treatments that are specifically about the RPG in question (e.g. game guide type books) are still primary sources, as they are not secondary examinations of the subject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not conflating primary with secondary sources; that's why I use paragraphs, dawg, to discuss different topics. Tresca mentions psionics four times (not all included in the index) and articulates the relationship between psionic and spell systems; Perlini-Psister notes in main text and footnote the relationship between game psionics, myth and parapsychology; "The New Mana" makes a similar point about the contrast between psionic and Vancian spell systems. All of these are reliable sources.
 * I will also point out that GURPS for Dummies has a discussion of psionics which, all on its own, would qualify as an RS for the GNG, and there is also a significant discussion in Appendix N: The Literary History of Dungeons & Dragonsby Jeffro Johnson. I don't think there is any real question that the topic is discussed and can be sourced outside of the rulebooks.Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Newimpartial's sourcing. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Major component of role playing games, going back some 30 years at least. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2017 (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.