Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Fire!


 * 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   delete. Even some comments to keep indicate that sources referring to this game show little more than trivial coverage (e.g. single line comparisons to other games), so the discussion tends to confirm the nominator's rationale that this article does not meet [{WP:N]] Fritzpoll (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rapid Fire!

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

Three grounds: Not notable, no reliable sources have been found after search, and appears to be veiled advertising (article creator has contributed nothing to wikipedia except this article and a few edits concerning these wargaming rules or their authors) Wolfhound1000 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 162k ghits for "rapid fire" wargame, which indicates some notability among wargamers. With my extremely limited knowledge of these things, I am not a good candidate to try to add anything. Would it make sense to tag the article with some combination of, , and neutrality for a couple of months, then renominate?Vulture19 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: As Vulture19 says, it does seem to be a notable game. I've tried looking for references to improve the article but I keep getting either comparisons (eg. "Game X is as good/not as good as Rapid Fire") or links to magazines that I do not own (apparently Wargames Illustrated has a few articles about it).  This indicates some notability but isn't immediately helpful for reference pruposes. The article needs to be improved but I don't think it should be deleted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Boardgamegeek has basically nothing, but Wargames Illustrated has a review and a number of scenarios for the game . Not a very general source (which is not required), nor multiple (which pretty much is) but I suspect there are other RS reviews out there.  Hobit (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically a fanzine, not the sort of reliable source that is required to establish notability. Assorted-photo-guy (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't show anything. When I search that site through Google for "rapid fire", the only thing I get is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wargamesillustrated.net%2F+%22rapid+fire%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= the title mentioned briefly and nothing more in a .pdf file.  Where on that site is it listed?   D r e a m Focus  15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure why the link doesn't work, but if you click on "WI210 - 219" on the left it brings you to where I was trying to link to.  The issue lists a review of Rapid Fire (no details) and a few other things involving Rapid Fire.   Let me know if that _still_ doesn't work.  Hobit (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * strong keep I know the game is very well known and highly thought of among wargamers, but online sources are hard to come by For example, it was premiered at Salute 05, one of the biggest wargames conventions, run by South London Warlords. However although both Salute and SLW have (fairly basic) websites, they don't feature detailed info either on the premiere, or on games run using Rapid Fire! rules in subsequent Salutes. It has at least one busy discussion forum, but of course you need passwords for that.  I'll add what I can.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with nominator, there should not be a confusion between whether it is a popular game and whether this is a notable subject for a wiki article. Can't find any reliable sources, it does not meet the criteria for notability. The keep votes above seem to acknowledge this. The article looks like its been tagged since fall of 08 and still no sources. Sources are what wikipedia is all about, not just things we like. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment : If wikipedia's aim is to be encyclopaedic, then it must surely consider the popular to be notable. Indeed, how can a popular game - that has remained popular over the last 15 years - not be at least currently notable?  Perhaps a discussion for a different place.  The game has been in use for a considerable number of years, and repeatedly reviewed in every UK wargaming magazine (of which there are only two, neither of with have online archive). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - From WP:N, It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute. So no hard and fast rule on popularity.  -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Using this search, I was unable to find anything that would establish notability for this game. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the articles I linked to above? Hobit (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your link above takes me to a site to buy a paper magazine. Without seeing it, I can't judge what the magazine might say, but it doesn't appear that any of the featured articles in the advertisement focus on this game. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the way they do links there makes a pure URL not enough information (which I hadnt' realized). Try following the link again and clicking on "WI210 - 219".  No details, but clearly a review and another couple articles.   Hobit (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I searched the website they claim to have won an award at Leeds War Games Club and I don't see any mention of that. Also, this is just a small club of people, meeting in some kid's basement over in England, not some major organization.  Googling for "Rapid Fire" will give you plenty of links to things unrelated to this game, so you can't go by the number of Google hits, of course.  I'm still searching for information about it, before making my decision.   D r e a m Focus  15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I get over 3400 hits when I Google "Rapid Fire!" "tabletop" and "wargaming". I look through the first three pages of results, and it seems like a legitimate game.  The article does read like a commercial though, so needs some work.  [[User:Dream Focus |  D r e a m Focus] 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the comments above about the game getting hits on google (or whatever), that's not really what notability is all about. There simply does not seem to be any significant coverage of this game in reliable sources which are independent of the subject.  Delete. Assorted-photo-guy (talk) 04:35, 3 March 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.