Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Company (role-playing game)


 * 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, default to keep. Wizardman 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black Company (role-playing game)

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

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | talk 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Green Ronin Publishing unless sources are provided that establish this topic's notability on its own. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and nom has failed to tender any explanation of why this game is not notable.  RGTraynor  23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the publisher is notable does not mean everything they publish is notable. The burden of evidence is on those who think the topic is notable. -- Explodicle (T/C) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden is upon a nominator to provide deletion grounds that at least have some measure of backing. I can't go around AfDing every article I don't like with a curt "non-notable" without explaining why I think they are, and then demand that others jump through hoops I won't even contemplate approaching.    RGTraynor  07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For convenience I've replied only on Articles for deletion/OGL System. -- Explodicle (T/C) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm sure some of the paper fanzines have done in depth reviews. But there are some on-line as well:
 * http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11438.phtml
 * http://www.rpgconsortium.com/gamerscorner/articles/article.cfm?id=356
 * Hobit (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one seems to be a self-published source, and I'm not too sure about the second one. Can anyone else verify? -- Explodicle (T/C) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * RPGnet is owned by Skotos Tech Inc. and has editorial oversight on its reviews. Yes, reviews can be submitted by basically anyone, but there is a vetting process, i.e. they aren't just published immediately but are reviewed themselves before they become publicly available.  As stated in their FAQ the reviews they want should "Be neither a puff piece nor an attack piece" and should "Include both description & analysis".  Because of this editorial oversight, I argue that the reviews don't qualify as self-published sources.  --Craw-daddy | T | 08:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first does read like a press release, but if it is, it is a hugely unsucessfull one. I couldn't find a second copy of it anywhere. Usualy you can find at least a handfull of identical texts in case of a press release. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's right. I don't know if I can agree that this is a reliable source like I did at Articles for deletion/OGL System. This is a puff piece, and spends more time talking about how great it is and you should buy it than it spends presenting facts. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (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.