Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayfarers (role-playing game) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wayfarers (role-playing game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be pretty much non-notable, and was deleted by a previous AfD a couple of months ago for this very reason. The presence of an ISBN number (the reason the PROD was removed) doesn't confer such a status, either! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under WP:SPEEDY G4: Previously deleted material.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't speedy. An IP editor asked me to remove the salting so that they could recreate it, presumably because some sources exist. Have we made a search for those sources? Protonk (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually their job to do that if they specifically request it... and in their removal of the PROD, they try to justify its existence as it is, suggesting that they have no intention of bringing it up to standard. I agree that we shouldn't speedy, though. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted as much on my talk page. Though arguably our guidelines don't allow us to delete the article itself if it is sourced, regardless of how the article is presented. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. RPGNet have reviewed it here: .  I do think RPGNet are a reliable source for pen and paper RPGs.  But if it's okay for people to re-create deleted material willy-nilly, then I have a whole list of articles I'd like to bring back to life.  Shall I send it to you? :-)-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there are two issues here: whether or not it exists (which I'm sure it does), but also - whether or not it is notable and merits its own article. And I don't think that a website like that, which exists to cover large numbers of such games regardless of whether or not they are good - since it reviews them - and I don't think that it is notable! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need to consider that. The previous AfD has already considered.  I still think it's speediable; I just brought that up in response to Protonk's request for sources.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a real request or are you just being snide? I salted the article because it was repeatedly recreated. The IP made a reasonably argument that the past discussion was predicated upon a false assumption. I could have sent them to DRV to get approval to remake the article, but I figured I didn't want to engage in process for the sake of it. So if I have protected any title for an article you wish to create, please ask me and I'll likely remove that protection. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably read your talk page.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the request on your talk page and re-read the previous AfD, I still think the concern that emerged from the last AfD was about notability, and I still think the current draft fails to address that.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, if the subject isn't notable (presumably this might hinge on whether or not RPGnet is a reliable source for these matters). Protonk (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's my place to say so, but if RPG.net is not a reliable source for RPG-related information, I am not sure what independent source in the RPG industry is. I think this is the inherent nature of this subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randommonster (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree 100% of the time. I have used RPGnet as a source once.  It seems that they have some content which is connected to named authors and undergoes some quality control, but most of the content is either blog-ish or user generated.  It should definitely be used with caution, but I don't think that it is completely unreliable. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, see this at RPGnet. Yes, content is user-generated, but (from my understanding) has editorial oversight, so I think would be classified as reliable in this context.  I have used RPGnet for reviews in some other articles.  Concerns about "a website like that, which exists to cover large numbers of such games regardless of whether or not they are good - since it reviews them" seem out of place, otherwise what about game magazines that exist to cover (i.e. mainly review) games, magazines like SFX which (mainly) review lots of film, tv, etc, etc?  As long as there's analysis, that seems to be the key (and being reliable, which I think, in this case is satisfied).  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my formatting in this discussion is incorrect. I have added another popular and established RPG index that lists the game. I find the notability issue a bit gray here. By their very nature most RPGs have relatively small followings. However games like this one are significant to this very active community. In particular this game represents a new popular movement towards old-school RPG design philosophies that has been ignited by the OGL licensed described in the article. This game has a place in RPG development. In addition, it is not a pamphlet. This is a 400+ book that is published in two versions each carrying an ISBN. I suppose I can see how someone outside the RPG community might find this topic non-notable. However within this community, it is a game of note. I could reference multiple forum discussions about referencing the game if it helps, however I thought that might be poor sourcing. I am wondering specifically (and realistically), what would make this game more notable? Thanks for the help. I'm really trying to create a quality article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randommonster (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You need a second independant source, other than RPG net, which gives some kind of coverage to the RPG. A simple listing of the game, such as at darkshire.net, doesn't really cut it. If you can find some sources on print, such as a reviuew in an RPG magazine, that would carry a fair bit of weight. 67.171.38.85 (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will do some looking about. I linked a review at the quite popular blog grognardia.blogspot.com, but the reference was deleted. I assume blog reviews do not qualify? Also, would it help to reference a journal the Ye Olde Gaming Companye publishes for the game? I'd appreciate a little time to do some more research. Thanks!
 * I have found some more sources. I think the most reliable is that they previewed the game at the U-Con convention in Ann Arbor, Friday Nov. 21st, 2008. I will provide the U-Con exhibitor information link later today (at work :)). I also found the game is sold by Noble Knight Games. Also, as mentioned by JulesH, the Wayfarers paperback is published POD by Lulu, but the hardcover is apparently sold by the Ye Olde Gaming Companye themselves. I'm not sure if that is meaningful or not. I'd appreciate a bit more time, I'm doing some more digging. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randommonster (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mere verfication that the product "exists" by showing that it's being sold by various companies is (unfortunately or fortunately, depending upon who you ask) isn't sufficient. What's really needed is another review by some reliable source that's independent of the designer/company.  I'll try to have a look if there's anything in the latest Pyramid magazine(s) about it if I have time to do so.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've readded the review at Grognardia. It is a blog. However, I don't think you can get a much better source in the industry than the author James M. Here are his RPG credentials. This is a very popular blog by a very established RPG author. I believe this is a source of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.84.179 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (G4) (or userfy if not done so already) and re-salt – recreation of deleted material that doesn't address the issues from the previous AFD. This could have been avoided by userfying the article and having the user request unsalting at DRV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. One review and a brief description don't establish notability by themselves, and I can't find any additional sources with a quick search, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.  The journal doesn't help establish notability, unless somebody independent has reviewed it.  It doesn't help the game's case that it is apparently published via Lulu (publisher). JulesH (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability has not been established via coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogs and rpg.net (which is a database of user-submitted reviews) are not reliable sources. RPGs are lousy with dubious-notability, self-published game addons, and this is just another one of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This game indisputably exists and people play it. Within its subject matter, it is of note, and has been recognized by notable people and forums of the RPG industry. It is a genuine topic that very reasonably might be queried by someone else for further information. To say that online verification is lousy and dubious in Wikipedia of all places is ironic. I am disturbed by the unprovoked hostility I've encountered while making a genuine effort to go through the proper channels. I can easily find other RPGs on Wikipedia with poorer sourcing. As a result, I'd like to invoke the Ignore all Rules Policy, as I think this has digressed to simple pedantry and opinion that prevents the improving of Wikipedia. I thank those who were helpful and respectful during my effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randommonster (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I indisputably exist. In the meantime, this is a self-published RPG addon.
 * I'm guessing you're involved in the creation of this. That's fine. You do need to understand that we're not excluding it as an article topic on a technicality, though; the rules exist in part so that people aren't advertising their self-published works on Wikipedia. IAR doesn't exist to blow off the intent of the rules. - A Man In Bl♟ck  (conspire - past ops) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Because I'd rather not bother with this stuff anymore. It seems this is a losing proposition. I don't understand the point if something can be so easily deemed not-notable by non-experts before it can be posted? This experience has really soured my on this wiki. And MIB, you are 'guessing I am involved in the creation of the game?' Great. Yeah, I'm Jimmy Swill. I was hoping to get rich here. Just this one post on Wikipedia and everyone will buy my RPG, my master plan... you got me. You obviously have a prejudice here. Delete this topic and purify your wiki. I just think wikipedia is worse for it. It's like a public library in China, all the knowledge has been checked by the authorities for your benefit. I just hope you are cool enough to let other people take a stab at this topic in the future. The admin I contacted got flack just for letting me try to make the article. Sheesh.
 * Delete due to the lack of independent, reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, it shows some promise but we need more and better sourcing here and it doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Blogs can be reliable sources but I'm not seeing that these are that. You may want to wait a bit and see if this subject gets more coverage or even ask at related wikiprojects for leads on sourcing. -- Banj e  b oi   01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep RPGnet reviews have editorial oversite (as shown above). However  I don't see multiple RSs.  I suspect we'll be back once this does have another RS, so certainly don't salt. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another try? I am back here again. There was another review for this game, posted here: and here: . Is it worth my while to recreate the article? Thanks.
 * 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.