Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabletop Simulator


 * 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   Userfy. While there are more people on the keep side, lots of them are weak to very weak side. Consensus is the sources are a little on the light side at this time, so userfication over outright deletion is the path to take, as mentioned this subject may gain some legs in the future. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Tabletop Simulator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This product appears to fail notability. It is not even out of beta yet! It should not be part of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Origamite (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being out of beta isn't a criteria for deletion. It has notable media coverage (in the References). For example, Duke Nukem Forever took a couple of millennia to get out and it had significant coverage before it was released. I think it meets the notability criteria. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Duke Nukem was an addition to an already established, major franchise. This is not; the developer has under 5k google results and this appears to be their only game. I know WP:BIG, but there is a limit. Origamite (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I still oppose; wait for other editors to chime in. You may want to post a notice on the Video game WikiProject talk page to get more input. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems well sourced, out of beta isn't a reason for deletion (as far as I know, Fruit Ninja Frenzy will always be in beta, for example), and will continue to expand as the game gets more coverage. It's not WP:TOOSOON, even if it's an early date for the article to be created in relation to the game. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Week Keep I personally would have not created the article until more sources came out- the only additional source I'm seeing in addition to the RPS one is from Boing Boing, and that's not a lot. But this game does appear on track for release, and when that happens we can anticipate reviews (going through Steam will help). It might not get a lot of reviews, at which point we can review the deletion but the vector this is on presently says that we will get some, so better to let it stay and consider the AFD again after release. There is some crystal-balling in this reasoning so hence why this is a weak keep. --M ASEM (t) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources available now aren't great, but they're not nothing, and we may as well keep the page so we don't almost inevitably have to recreate it later (WP:SNOWBALL). Tezero (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep The sources are the main problem. Rilech (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Only good sources are the Rock Paper Shotgun link and this Entertainment Buddha article, but it's so likely to have more coverage in such a short time that I think WP:SNOWBALL can overrule WP:CRYSTALBALL. - Iago Qnsi  06:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so should we slap some templates on until it actually comes out, at which point we find new sources? Also, I was looking at arguments to avoid and I realized that I started this mainly with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree with you guys now, and I do think we need more sources. Origamite (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sources cover this in depth at all other that WP:NOTNEWS style "look at this thing" announcements. - hahnch e n 16:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I first found this when the main writer of the article, User:Chris walkerntm spammed it across board game pages. Can someone make sure I didn't miss any? Origamite (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Special:WhatLinksHere/Tabletop_Simulator. - hahnch e n 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I missed Patience Solitaire and Computer Chess. Origamite (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. There is one reliable source covering this: two paragraphs posted on RPS. I don't believe the Entertainment Buddha source is reliable. For one, it's written by a 2010 college grad who up until a year ago had only worked retail and appears to have no other experience in the gaming industry before being made Managing Editor of the website. Does anyone seriously believe this is a reliable source? Because I'd like to hear your reasoning. People in this AfD say "the sources available" or "seems well sourced". I don't consider one short RPS article to be "notable media coverage in the references". GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. If this article is kept due to having only two paragraphs on RPS, I think that would be a very low bar for inclusion, and I don't think we need to ignore all rules every time RPS posts two paragraphs on their website. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When the game is released, and if it receives more coverage, anyone is free to review the game again and possibly create an article for it. But I don't think that not being released yet should somehow works in the game's favor by granting it a stay of execution. That it might receive coverage in the future is an argument that can literally be applied to everything in the universe. The article is being nominated for deletion today, and if the topic is not notable today then it should be delete. Unless anyone has actual evidence to support the assertion that it will receive reviews and coverage in the future, then I don't see any reason to believe it will. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We could move it into the author's userspace. Origamite (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to Draftspace or userfy. It technically doesn't pass the GNG right now. I know it feels futile because it will (easily) when it's released, but right now, the single RS coverage is coming from the RPS article. The WP:VG/RS search showed nothing else of note. It's not worth deleting as non-notable since it's on track to be notable, but it is worth perhaps taking it out of mainspace so it isn't confused for a full-fledged article (but even then, whatever). czar ♔  02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Multiple 3rd party RSes covering it in depth. It meets GNG. It's obviously at the lowest end of the notability spectrum, but it meets Wikipedia's minimum requirements (which is sufficient for a "keep" !vote right there) and presumably there will be more coverage once it's released. -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Ah strike that. Czar is right: only 1 RS. I misread the second ref. -Thibbs (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above, while there are "sources", there's not multiple examples from reliable secondary sources, as needed by the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (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.