Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Everlasting (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. The game clearly exists somewhere on the borderline of relevant notability guidelines. Participants have discussed what sources are available in some depth, and seem to have reached good-faith disagreement over exactly where the line is drawn. No consensus has been reached over a very long discussion period. ~ mazca  talk 00:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Everlasting (role-playing game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This paper RPG does not seem to meet WP:NBOOKS/GNG. I am not seeing any reviews of the system "The Everlasting" as a whole. It consists of 4 books, as far as I tell none have been reviewed in reliable sources, all I see are blogs, forum posts, and personal websites. The 4th book is the one that seems to have the most reviews, but none I found strike me as reliable (i.e. published in a gaming magazine or a website with some reputation for fact checking or editorial process). None of the books nor the game system as far as I can tell seemed to have won any awards or such. In the end, I am afraid that it is not a notable product (game system). Previous prod by User:Boleyn (ping), prod removed by User:Newimpartial who mentioned reviews - please list the ones you think are reliable (not WP:SPS etc.). Comments appreciated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Note the set of RS and the set of SPS overlap, per WP:SPS, in the instance of "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". For example, the author of geeknative has published on gaming in RS publications (The Independent) and fits the criteria for established expertise. His reviews are therefore RS. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if he is reliable, and I am not sure - it would be one thing if his review would be published in TI, but when it is on his own page, it is self-published, just like we differentiate between what a scholar writes in a peer-reviewed outlet, and what he writes on his blog. His webpage is nice, but it is de facto a Patreon-supported blog, just web 3.0-style. Second, as far as I remember, he didn't review the system, just one or two books. PS. Also, being published in a newspaper does not make one an expert. Hobbists and amateurs get published in newspapers too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that he was published professionally in the newspaper - not as OP-ed, not as "citizen journalism". So yes, it counts. Also note that the carve-out in WP:SPS applies specifically to the self-pulished work of recognized experts within their area of expertise - if the review were not self-published, we would not be having this conversation. As far as the argument that book reviews don't count to the Notability of the game, that is a new one. The fact is that they document the notability of the topic, and then it is a matter of discussion whether the topic is best addressed through articles on individual books, on the game as a whole, or some other unit of analysis. But there is never a valid argument for deletion based on the unit of analysis being "wrong" - at most, that is a merger or redirection argument. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I do not believe that interpretation of WP:SPS is correct, as otherwise, everyone who has ever written an article for a reliable newspaper, for example, would automatically be considered an "established expert" on whatever topic that article happened to be about, which is not the case. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret the phrase "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" as more along the lines of say, a virologist whose work with HIV has been published in scientific journals might be considered an established expert on HIV as far as a self-published source on the subject goes. Not that someone who wrote some articles on a particular subject is automatically considered an expert on that subject and whose personal website is now considered a reliable source. That very guideline also very clearly states to exercise caution when using such sources. All of this, however, is really a moot point because even if Andrew Girdwood's personal site could somehow be argued to be a reliable source (which, again, it really isn't), there is really not much else besides that on the game that would allow this article to pass the WP:GNG. A small handful of reviews of some of the individual books on highly questionable websites does not establish notability for the game as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting interpretation, but isn't really supported by WP:GNG. Insofar as the reviews are RS SPS, they absolutely do establish notability for the game which consists of these books.
 * As far as Girdwood is concerned, his reputation as an expert in RPGs exists independently of the The Independent (through convention participation etc.) but is documented by that paper for WP:SPS purposes. If he were a journalist who happened to do a piece on gaming, I would not be making this argument, but that is far from being the case.
 * AFAICT, the whole point of that carve-out is so that self-published analysis by Girdwood or Ken Hite is not thrown out with the bathwater of SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on reviews in geeknative and The Unspeakable Oath, NBOOK and the GNG are met. WP:N is established. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per my arguments above, I think we have to agree to disagree. As I said, those reviews are not about the Everlasting RPG as a single entity, but about specific books from the series. Further, I don't consider those websites reliable, they seem SPS. Such reviews can push a borderline topic over, for example if we had a single review in a good reliable source like a gaming magazine or such, then we could use a bunch of less reliable reviews and say 'ok-ish'. But we are missing a single good source, and just have a tiny number of very low key and pretty much self-published reviews about not the main system but its sub-products. I am afraid the sources located so far, all of which I have reviewed, do not convince me to change my recommendation to "Delete due to fail of NBOOK/GNG". But thank you for your input!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Unspeakable Oath is a professional publication with highly esteemed writers (who are generally notable in their own right). For what reason, besides your priors, do you not consider it "a good source"?
 * As far as "the books/series" distinction you are making, it doesn't make a difference. Your argument is like saying that if TV writers review each season of Lost, but not Lost as a whole, then we shouldn't have an article about Lost (TV series). In fact, there is a good deal more interdependence between publications in an RPG line than among seasons of a show. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you link the review of The Everlasting at The Unspeakable Oath? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't give you a link, but two reviews are on p. 91 of Issue 16/17. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, it is a website, why can't you give me a link? Even if it's some offline issue, surely there is a table of content online, or something else to help verify the review even exists? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Unspeakable Oath is a source independent of this article's subject and professionally published from 1993 on (the reviews in question date from 2001). It is therefore indisputably a reliable source for purposes of NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK and the reviews cited by Newimpartial. I agree that it's obvious that reviews of one book in a series supports the notability of the series as a whole. I also see a review at RPG.net. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing at NBOOK suggests that a review of one book in a series supports notability of the series (please see WP:NOTINHERITED). And as I noted, RPGbooks is not reliable ("edit this review", wiki or forum review). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An RPG game is not akin to a "book series" - it is an intellectual property that may be instantiated in multiple books and/or boxed sets and/or serial publications. Notability pertains to the game, but the reviews are typically of the individual publications making up the game. This, by the way, is akin to the treatment of many RPG publications at AfD - merger into game articles. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Errr, it is quite common for RPG system with many books to get a review not just of individual books but of the greater whole. For example, / (Eclipse Phase). Same for other systems I checked. The issue is this RPG is so niche it has barely any reviews, and IMHO what is out there is not enough to make the system notable. Maybe the last book could be notable, I think I saw 3-4 reviews for it, but the issue remains that most of them did not appear very reliable anyway. Not every RPG is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Like anything else, an RPG is notable if there are reliable, independent sources available to write about it. Piotrus, you yourself admit that there are reliable source reviews that meet NBOOK and the GNG with respect to the last installment of The Everlasting. That means there is no valid delete argument: the question, per PRESERVE and BEFORE C.4 is at what level of aggregation the topic should be addressed, not whether WP should address the content in question. My own argument is that it makes much more sense to have an article for a game, sourced to reviews of its component books, than it does to have an article on the best-referenced book and then to refer mentions of the game in general to, e.g., the final book's article through redirects. The latter inelegant solution is, however, the only policy-compliant course apart from having an article for the game as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I said that with regards to that book the sources are better, but at best borderline. As I said earlier, most seem to be blogs and like. So maybe one book is notable, the rest are unlikely to be so, and the entire system IMHO fails as well. Sorry, but unless you can find some good reviews (and so far you linked ZERO), I am afraid there is little here that can change my view. Do ping me if you link good sources and analyze them, and I'll be happy to reply to such an analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I gave perfectly good bibliographic citations (issue and page number) for two RS reviews. Please don't pretend that links are required, because they ain't. Let's try to stay within the bounds of policy at this challenging time. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Links are not required, but I don't have any reason to believe that the sources you mention that I cannot verify I reliable or in-depth. Based on what I can find out about those publications online they don't seem like coverage related to them would be either. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a verifiable proof that it published a review of this system? How do you know about this fact? Do you own a copy of the physical magazine in question? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I "own" is an old .pdf of the issue in question. The reviews of the two books come to almost 2000 words on pp.91-2; the table of contents for the issue may be found here. Full disclosure: I don't actually like The Everlasting - I found it cheesy at the time and don't find that it has aged very well either. But the GNG does not include a carve-out to exclude publications on IDONTLIKEIT grounds, even based on my own elevated taste. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Given this I accept those two as reliable reviews for the two books in question. I am still not convinced that's enough to make either of them notable (NBOOK/GNG require multiple good sources, not one per book) and I stand by my prior argument that for an RPG system to be notable it should have reviews of its own as a single entity, through I think one could also argue that a system whose most books are clearly notable as they have gotten multiple reviews each is probably notable too. For TE I am not seeing either, I am afraid. Let's see what others think, for now I don't think either of us will convince the other one about those issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient WP:RS are within, or outside, article to demonstrate the WP:SIGCOV needed to pass the WP:GNG. The NBOOK argument is an unconvincing interpretation of policy. Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy-based argument do you have against the application of NBOOK in this case? Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * None. NBOOK should be applied. The interpretation of NBOOK offered (i.e. that "geeknative.com" is in the spirit of NBOOK for cresting its review criteria, etc.), by which this article would pass, is an unconvincing one. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC); edited 17:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * weak keep it sounds like we have consensus (though not complete consensus) that we have two reliable reviews for rule books that make up this game. I would tend to believe, given the dates and what I know of this system (which is quite limited) that there were more reviews at the time, though finding them would be pretty hard.  Further, I'm fine with "upmerging" the two topics into a single topic (which actually makes a lot of sense for a game system like this). As such I think the argument for keeping the article is fairly weak (sources are probably fine; upmerging to get two reliable sources is questionable but frankly I'd only want one article for the two books). Hobit (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.