Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dresden Files (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 Redirect to The Dresden Files. Per WP:NOT. This game hasn't even been officially announced. However, deleting would not be optimal, since discussion of the proposed game ought to be mentioned at the novels' article, and in the future the article can be restarted if/when it's clearer the game will actually be coming out.Cúchullain t/ c 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dresden Files (role-playing game)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The expected future release of this game is not notable; the article itself has no content, context or analysis, despite being in development since 2004. --Gavin Collins 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Entry has reliable outside sources, satisfies verifiability and notability. Wisdom89 09:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "In development since 2004"?  Where is this information located?  --Craw-daddy | T | 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response from the same reliable source that says it is due for release in "summer of 2006". --Gavin Collins 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I overlooked that part. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - has refs. Upcoming game of a popular book series. Web Warlock 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a post you made on the Dresden Yahoo forum entitled "Need some Wikipedia help"?--Gavin Collins 09:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. STORMTRACKER   94  14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Rray 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Agree with Wisdom89. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't company press releases considered unreliable, and insufficient to establish notability? Because that's what the sources are. SolidPlaid 01:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except there are also two podcasts listed as well, at least one of which is independent of the game/authors. (Which should be integrated into the article as sources too.) And, yes, before it's mentioned, more references are appropriate. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Podcasts hardly seem reliable sources to me. SolidPlaid 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one that seemingly talks to one of the owners of/writers for Evil Hat Productions. (I say "seemingly" as I haven't listened to it.)  And this one says they talk to two of the writers (Rob Donoghue and Fred Hicks) of the game.  It's not like they're talking to their friend's neighbor's hairdresser's dog walker.  (again).  --Craw-daddy | T | 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for several reasons. One, it is spammy. Two, the sources are not reliable. Three, the game has not been demonstrated to be notable, since none of the sources are independent. Four, crystalballery. Furthermore, this AfD would not be so Keep-heavy if it weren't for the very active dispute between the nominator and some of the users voting for keep above. SolidPlaid 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons cited above, plus the game is currently entering the playtest phase, which is one of the final stages towards actual release. CBeilby  04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Gavin Collins placed Template:Notability, and Template:Primarysources just a little over two weeks before nominating this article for deletion. No significant changes were made to the article when he tagged it with AFD.  I feel that Gavin is attempting to force cleanup on his schedule here.  I cannot find a WP policy stating a time period for cleanup once an article has been tagged with one suggesting it needs it-- and two weeks between tagging for cleanup and deletion seems a bit quick on the trigger.Ukulele 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response When you created this article, deletion would always be a risk without proper sources, which predicted the game would be released last year. CBeilby has hightlighed a clear problem with this product: no clear release date has been announced. If an article fails WP:NOT, the concern not merely a matter of cleanup by me, it is down to you to take special care to ensure that the future release date is 100% verifiable and not speculation. --Gavin Collins 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter Response Deletion of any RPG-related content here certainly seems to be a risk lately, Gavin.  WP:NOT clearly states that: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.  I am not attempting to be pedantic, but 100% certainty of release does not need to be established according to the policy you quoted.  Nor do I feel that a consensus has been reached here regarding the subject as non-notable.  I also feel that preparation for this release has been established in the article, references and external links. Ukulele 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I've made a section on the Dresden Files main article called "Other Media" where I've written two sentences about the show and linked to its wiki article as well as added a subsection for the rpg that states that the rpg was announced, who's working on it and that there isn't a firm release date. I've used the official site and the 3rd party podcast as references. --Torchwood Who? 03:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Since when is it standard Wikipedia policy to have one article for all versions of a single property, particularly when they are in different media? --CBeilby 13:56. 19 October, 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.100.122 (talk)
 * Response to Response It's not policy, but it's done quite often when the property isn't notable enough on its own to warrant a seperate page. I added the mention of the TV series as a way to "pad" out the other media section so it was easier to find a home for the RPG. If you don't want it in there, that's okay... just edit it out and I won't fight you on it, but I'm still voting for Deletion on this particular aspect of Dresden.--Torchwood Who? 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete of the refs and exlinks, only one is independent of the game. No other evidence of notability is supplied. Percy Snoodle 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps a merge would work with the Dresden Files main article, but it was never even considered. Wholesale ghosting of content is as about extreme as you can get on Wikipedia.  I'm disappointed at how fast the deletion process is for RPG content lately.  Cleanup tags can work if you let them.  It certainly is a bit of a let down to come back from holiday to see your contributions on the precipice of oblivion because you weren't working fast enough as a contributor to suit another.  IMHO there were several other avenues that should have been pursued, before nominating the AFD.  Even stub articles like these are labors of love for Wikipedia-- they take time to make.  This article was tagged with 'clean up' tags, and two weeks later deemed ready for the rubbish bin by the same person.  Why is the article's talk page still empty..?  Certainly a proposal to merge was a reasonable course of action.  Even (gasp) letting the article sit a bit longer in it's current state does not seem unreasonable.  It was indeed attracting other contributors who were actually adding or correcting content.  I felt the process of moving from stub-with problems to good article was indeed under way-- just not fast enough it seems.Ukulele 16:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment The problem is, the more crystal ball gazing that is added to this article, the more spammy it looks. The reason is that the only sources for the game are the publishers and artists working on the project; the more you add, the more it looks like product placement. --Gavin Collins 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Well Gavin, since this article is about yet-to-be released game, you have the option of referring to any information about it as crystal ball gazing, but that doesn't mean it fits the spirit and meaning of the crystal ball gazing policy. I have added additional cited material from third-party sources-- one even in Portuguese ROFL.  Because of your AFD, I have done this with a feeling of being under under the gun and working on YOUR schedule and I resent it.  I feel you have used AFD to force cleanup in a timely manner, something for which AFD was never intended.  You have demonstrated that you will nominate content for deletion while lacking the understanding of Wikipedia policy protecting it-- I am directly referring to the requests you made to delete the copyrighted images I uploaded with fair-use rationales.  You argued that because they were copyrighted, the only way they could be used on Wikipedia was if I had a license!!!  Another administrator had to step in, quickly decline your request and show you the  policy protecting Wikipedia's fair-use of the images.--  after I all but begged you to look for the policy yourself to support your argument.  Plainly, I feel that you jumped the gun on this AFD, and now that I have made a good-faith if not rushed effort to improve the article you now call it spammy.  I am beginning to think that you will use any argument-- any interpretation of a policy at your disposal to ghost an article once you've nominated it.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't rings true and familiar here.Ukulele 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comments After Cleanup by Ukulele My biggest issue with the article is that there's no firm release date for the product. If it had a definite target date things would look more relevant. My second biggest issue is the sourcing. Although you've made a great effort, it's hard work because the product isn't in release and has no release date. There isn't a lot of coverage and the coverage that exists is either first-party or shakey. Take for example, another Sci-Fi Channel propoerty turned RPG, Stargate Stargate SG-1 (roleplaying game)... In my google results for "Stargate RPG"  the first two pages you see the official publisher, mentions of award nominations, fan pages for the RPG, player forums, retailer product list, etc. For Dresden RPG, in the first 3 pages of results I'm finding 18 first party sources, 3 wiki-entries, 4 message board / livejournal entries, 4 entries about the Dresden Files TV Series and 1 link about the FATE system. This just tells me that the game isn't ready for its own article at this time.--Torchwood Who? 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone, I apologize that many of my comments here would have better been posted at Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins and I did not intend to drag this discussion into a Comment quagmire of a broader dispute. I know this is not a place to vote, but I have abstained from suggesting a Keep or Delete and simply wished to comment on what I feel is hasty nomination for AFD.  I have worked on the The Dresden Files (role-playing game) today and added some additional references and external links, which I hope satisfy many of you.  I believe in consensus and consider this a form of peer review and will hope for the best.  I feel I have made my point here.  Gavin, if you wish to respond to my last comment here, and I choose to counter respond, it will be on your RFCpage.  I'm pretty sure I could have done without the sarcasm in my comments as well-- sincere apologies again.  Ukulele 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Torchwood Who?, you have a solid point. My only counter would be that Wikipedia does allow for unreleased games as Percy Snoodle correctly tagged it.  However, the fact that the primary sources refuse to speculate on a release date is the weakest part of the article IMHO.  Personally I believe I have satisfied notability by adding additional 3rd party sources, though one is in Portuguese (still laughing at that one) and some of them are podcasts, which does not satisfy at least one user taking part in this discussion.  I'm not sure how I feel about them myself, but technically they are published 3rd party sources.  The only argument on behalf of the  tag I can make is that the game is indeed in the play testing phase and an application is available online.  Of course play testing could go on for quite a while too, so my argument is weak.  Yes, it is difficult finding really good independent sources on unreleased games, but most of the ones I found were published this year.  Is it possible the article has enough to hang around a while with the  tag for a bit longer? - Ukulele 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a hard call. If there was a release date or some kind of firm retail solicitations or something I'd probably overlook the sourcing issue. It just goes pretty far in to Crystal Balling when there's no actual date we're looking ahead to. I think Crystal says that we need some kind of evidence that the product is going to be released at some point. So without a release date or even a ballpark "season" it's hard to pin-down if the game is ever going to be finished. That's why I did the mention in the main Dresden article, so that there's a place where we mention the fact the game is in development... and whether the product ever gets released doesn't really matter. Maybe you could help expand the other media section of The Dresden Files? Notability and crystal doesn't have to be met if the info lives in that article. As long as the info is accurate and represents what is currently known about the rpg it shoudl be okay. Later on when more information exists someone can build a much better article for the RPG.--Torchwood Who? 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to Torchwood Who?. Should my peers deem this article not ready for Wikipedia, I will be happy to contribute some of the material to the main Dresden Files article and wait for a more solid release date to re-create or contribute to the separate RPG article, though I fear I may soon be back here to defend its notability-- the original intent of the AFD as stated by the nominator. - Ukulele 01:22, 22 October 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.