Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World of Synnibarr


 * 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   keep. Weak, but enough to keep. Article needs further referencing though. The Bushranger One ping only 07:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The World of Synnibarr

 * – ( View AfD View log )

there seems to be not a single reliable source which discusses this game, hence not notable. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as does not meet the notability criteria as stated in WP:NBOOK. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - contrary to nom, there are multiple reviews from a reliable source cited right on the page, and probably more out there. This is a curious case, because where the game is mentioned, it is mentioned as a poor example, but it does have some ideas (like "anti-GM rules") that seem to be expressing themselves in more recent games. If I believed in using the moniker "weak keep", I would. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash; i'm sorry, if there is a consensus that rpgnet is a reliable source, then my nomination was in error, and i will withdraw it. this is not an area in which i have expertise, and since all the mentions i could find were on what seemed to me to be blogs, i thought that there were not reliable sources. is it the consensus of the gaming community that rpgnet is sufficient to establish notability? &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would honestly have to admit that it is debatable. It has recently been defended as notable, but much of its content is user-generated and/or webforum. It does have an editorial staff, staff reviewers (of which one of the listed reviews is by), and the review section has a more strict publication process than the webforum section. At the very least, it is certainly not self-published. In this time where print magazines on RPGs are harder to come by, and after the decline of ENWorld's review section, RPGnet is one of the more reliable remaining sources of new rpg reviews. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ah, ok. perhaps i'll leave it up here, so we can see what the community thinks, then.  does that sound reasonable to you? &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; finding consensus is the method here. As mentioned, I consider Synnibar a bit of a borderline case, but would find treating of RPGnet itself an an unreliable source a decision that would have deleterious effects on establishing notability of somewhat more significant RPG products. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * weak keep the staff review at RPGnet is reliable IMO. This game system is also famous in a not-good way.  But reliable sources seem light.  I will link to a passing mention at Salon though it's not worth much . Hobit (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliability of RPGnet - searching the WP:RS archive brought me to this debate and this existing article. My interpretation of this is that RPGnet reviews are only acceptable sources if they're by a notable and recognised expert and even then should be backed up by other citations. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a new discussion at the RS noticeboard might be called for. That is a fairly small number of folks (one basically) to use to make a binding call.  It doesn't distinguish staff reviews from other (not sure if staff reviews existed at that point) which I at least think is pretty important. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the site still states reviews can be sent in by anyone (and I can't find evidence that the reviews quoted are anything other than fans with an opinion), this really falls under WP:SPS. With respect, I feel that if anyone considers the site to be a reliable source, the burden is upon them to demonstrate it. I still feel WP:NBOOK ("The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.") is not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 19:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MacLennan is or was a staff reviewer. I have no idea about the status of the other reviewer, so agree that this may be a borderline case (since it does amount to one staff review). Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that a given review will be published; it requires action by a staff member to publish the article. I'm not so sure that it's appropriate to conclude that all non-staff reviews at RPGnet are suspect. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Humm, I honestly don't know anything about the site (other than reading about it on it's Wikipedia page) but in this context is the review at somethingawful reliable? Hobit (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, two more book sources were added. Mathewignash (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2011 (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.