Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cubicle 7

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cubicle 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of this article's 10 references are to a WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of either fleeting mentions or inclusion on small hobby game websites or blogs, none of which are themselves RS. This appears to be part of an expansive WP:WALLEDGARDEN that also includes entries for all of the company's products and key people like Dominic McDowall-Thomas and Adventures in Middle-earth, etc. Chetsford (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Cubicle 7 is discussed extensively in Designers and Dragons, a paradigmatic reliable source in the field, and won numerous notable awards in its domain. The OP's characterization of the Cubicle 7-related articles as a "walled garden" shows profound ignorance of the tabletop RPG publishing industry in the 2000s and an inability to carry out a competent BEFORE in the domain. This particular article is not especially well-sourced, but AFDISNOTCLEANUP, as the nom should know. This one should really not even be under discussion, as the company is discussed in RS and published multiple notable and award-winning games. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep !vote addendum there is non-trivial coverage in https://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/ , which is a professional publication with editorial oversight independent of Cubicle 7. There is also non-trivial coverage in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons. That is two policy-compliant sources, so the GNG is met. Can we go home now? Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the company is discussed in RS - Such as? (Just the "Designers & Dragons" book from the "Evil Hat Productions" entity or are there others?) and published multiple notable and award-winning games. See WP:INHERITED Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This company has been discussed in many, many reliable sources besides Designers & Dragons; Ken Hite's former Out of the Box column is one example that I can remember clearly that definitely meets the RS threshold, though Cubicle 7's work was reviewed through the professional game press. Hell, Cubicle 7's business side was discussed in proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight, which I would not say about many RPG publishers of the period.
And NOTINHERITED means that works cannot inherit Notability from creators, but creators most certainly can inherit Notability from works; see NARTIST. I don't know why people find that one so confusing...Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cubicle 7's business side was discussed in proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight - Do any of these outlets have names or publication dates? Chetsford (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one genre of good example would be the coverage of Cubicle 7's non-renewal of the Starblazer and Doctor Who properties (among others). To me it is obvious that this coverage contributes to WP:N, but according to you the coverage has to be independent of Cubicle 7's actual products, which is of course a perverse travesty of what NOTINHERITED actually means. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BOZ - Newimpartial said Cubicle 7's business side was discussed in proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight. Do you know, or could you please identify, specifically which "proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight"? Chetsford (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep to quote the article itself, "Cubicle 7 has won 12 ENnie Awards,[4] 2 Origins Awards,[5] Best in Show, Lucca 2012[6] and a Golden Geek.[7]", this is above and beyond what is needed for reasonable call for notability. Web Warlock (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think the nom actually read the article. Certainly not with comprehension. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGSIG there is no inherent notability standard for companies on the basis of awards won, or any other reason and "no organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is". Companies only qualify for WP by meeting the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're the one misreading. What the policy says is simply that no organization can have an article written without two independent, reliable sources, per GNG. That isn't a problem here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it doesn't say anything about "two" sources. It says "The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product." It also says that "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement.". Right now there are no RS in this article. While I have been told that they exist, my two attempts to ask them to be presented have met with no reply. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the only reason you can say there are "no RS" is because, in spite of clear evidence presented here and the results of many previous AfD closures, you refuse to accept that Designers & Dragons is a RS. Rather, you prefer to believe that it is some kind of self-published screed, of the kind that is usually cited authoritatively in path-breaking academic texts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no company article that would be closed as "Keep" on the basis of reference in just one (1) RS. We have, literally, dozens of company articles (correctly) deleted daily with more than that. Game companies are evaluated by exactly the same standards as restaurant chains, sludge pump manufacturers, and accounting firms. Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More interesting OR policy development, but still no. Anyway, most of those deletions are COI, promotional, or peacock articles, and are definitely not publishers where the owners/designers had created award-winning books and games. Which you would know, if you had read AfD closures in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the candidate additional sources I can find fail either by not being RS (blogs or sources with minimal editorial oversight [1] [2] [3], fora [4], wikis [5], etc), not being independent (interviews with brand-new Tabletop Gaming magazine [6] and the Ennie awards blog [7]), or possibly both (lots of interviews in iffy sources: [8][9][10]). INHERITED is definitely a concern, as the closest-to-reliable sources I can find are reviews of the company's games (e.g. [11]) with little real content about the company itself, just things like "Cubicle 7 Entertainment, one of my favorite game companies".
I can't find the Out of the Box columns that supposedly discuss the company, but columns ordinarily fall under the category of opinion content, and thus per WP:NEWSORG can be reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, which are what we need to write a useful article and hence what matters for notability. FourViolas (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Hite is a paradigmatic case where a professional publishes reliable and independent commentary on his industry, meeting the strict criteria in WP:RS. And if you have any evidence that Cubicle 7 had any editorial influence on the publication of either edition of Designers & Dragons, I would love to hear it.
Also, your argument that Tabletop Gaming is not an independent source because it was "brand new" is unsettling, to say the least. What did you mean? The coverage of Cubicle 7 in that magazine is sustained, and is by no means confined to an interview as you imply. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Tabletop Gaming article I linked was not independent simply because it was an interview. It would help if you could provide examples of TG's sustained, significant coverage of the company, as their back issues aren't searchable online or in my university library, but that wouldn't be decisive because, per WP:NEWSORG, reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact, and it's hard for a two-year-old niche publication to be "well-established".
The evidentiary standard of WP:INDEPENDENT does not require me to produce meeting notes at which Evil Hat ordered Appelcline to talk more about Cubicle 7 because Evil Hat had licensed some of its games to them and wanted to boost their profile. However, your point that this it's Appelcline's relationship with Cubicle 7 is more of a grey-area WP:IS#Conflicts of interest than straightforward "close affiliation" is well-taken. FourViolas (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first volume of Designers & Dragons was from Mongoose Publishing, so if you want to discount the Evil Hat version of the book, then we can just go with the original for establishing independence. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FourViolas, your name pains me so much, because I have only one viola. :( And nobody every buys me the Viola d'Amore from my Wishlist.
In any event, I have re-examined NEWSORG, and it is intended, along with other sections of RS, to establish a hierarchy of sources for purposes of WEIGHT and BALANCE. It would be a serious misreading of NEWSORG to imply that a news organization with independence and editorial oversight doesn't count for notability because it is less than 5 years old. Hundred-year-old local newspapers count for notability, though their factual claims can't be presented with equal balance to contemporary scholarship. Let's not forget what our guidelines are for, nor use IDONTLIKEIT criteria to disadvantage certain topics against others. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FourViolas, I don't think you understand the relationship between Evil Hat and Cubicle 7: Cubicle 7 licensed the FATE SYSTEM under the open gaming license, a Public copyright license that allowed Cubicle 7 to use the FATE system for free. This did not create a financial relationship or any kind of interest that would have been in violation of INDEPENDENT, and at any rate publicatiom of the game concerned was discontinued before the Evil Hat edition of Designers & Dragons was released. I don't expect you to have known all this ahead of time, FourViolas, but I do expect you to accept the facts and move on. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Routledge book (Transmedia Foundations), edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies, looks okay and relies heavily on Appelcline; that seems just adequate to say Designers has entered mainstream academic discourse. Also, I'm convinced that the Designers—Cubicle connection is thin enough to qualify as independent, especially if there's significant coverage in the first edition.
That's still only one source, though, and I wouldn't expect a two-year-old online magazine with a circulation of "thousands", regardless of the topic, to qualify as a well-established news outlet without significant evidence to the contrary (e.g. mainstream media citing it for points of fact).
It might be helpful, if it wouldn't violate WP:FORUMSHOP, to get a WP:RSN discussion on Designers going; it looks like a lot of AfDs might depend on it, and it would be nice not to have to litigate it at each one. FourViolas (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Designers & Dungeons issue was settled before so got here (around the time 2nd edition came out): the nom's comments about novelty T-shirts seem to have been highly competent trolling on his part. But if RSN is truly necessary to prevent a recurrence of this splitshow, then it might be worth it.
As far as the sources you and High King are asking for, the most appropriate and accessible additional sources might be the coverage of Cubicle 7's management buyout and separation from its previous parent company, the Rebellion Group(e,g,[12]) or previously when if was bought by Rebellion in the first place ([13] for example). Though really I believe it is against policy to ignore the coverage of Cubicle 7 in connection to their games and the awards they have won, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first source, Geeknative.com, is an article by Andrew Girdwood on "a blog [... run by Andrew Girdwood]" with no evidence of editorial oversight. The second is pretty obviously a reprinted press release from Cubicle 7, right down to the "For further information, interviews or images please contact Chris Birch [email protected]" at the bottom. The other sources I can find about this event are verbatim or lightly reworded press release reprints (gamesindustry.biz, dicetowernews.com), hosted on the Cubicle 7 website, or manifestly unreliable (e.g. boardgamegeek.com).
If Cubicle 7 is covered in significant depth (multiple paragraphs of non-trivial information) in a RS article about one of their games, that certainly counts. But passing mentions in articles about notable games they've produced do not count towards WP:CORP, and of course per INHERIT it's not enough that the games are notable. FourViolas (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that an ORG mention must have "multiple paragraphs of non-trivial information" independent of their products simply does not exist in NORG and is a misreading of NOTINHERITED. In fact, for creators, NCREATIVE is quite clear that in fact the creator of works can inherit notability from these works, a!though the article needs to have RS information about the creators or WP can't have an article. Something participants in this discussion have trouble understanding is that a typical RPG publisher is half way between a musical group and say a newspaper, in terms of its process, where the "publisher" is as much creative, rather than corporate. NCORP notes that it "does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." which would be the case here. And the major differences between NORG and NBIO in this context are that creative works avowedly count for Notability in NBIO, and not all of the independent RS need to be independently "significant" to hit the threshold for Notability, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This is exactly the case we have here, in fact: a small group of creatives whose work is award-winning and covered in multiple RS and who receive extensive, independent, reliable coverage in one major sources but where the DEPTH or the reliability of the other independent sources can be questioned, once the sources about the group's works have been set aside. In such a case, the policy-compliant course is to Keep the article through the spirit of WP:N and the letter of NBIO, rather than applying NORG mechanically as if we were discussing a cement factory. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steady on, lets keep our guidelines in order. The point about "multiple paragraphs" is to meet SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH and "independent of their products" is to meet ORGIND. FourViolas was providing a reasonable (and helpful) interpretation of policies/guidelines that a reference/article on a game published by Cubicle 7 cannot be used to establish the notability of Cubicle 7 *unless* the reference provides more than a passing mention of the publisher. NCORP itself is clear that The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated so that interpretation is fine. NCREATIVE is for people, not organizations, and therefore does not apply here - if this topic was about an individual, then it would. Also, the danger to arguments you are putting forward is that it sounds a lot like NPUBLISHER - which was a failed proposal and therefore those arguments did not achieve a consensus then and will likely not now either. In summary, you cannot mix and match pieces from a guidelines you like for a different category of article to use here. Guidelines dealing with creative people do not apply to "creative" organizations. HighKing++ 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refresh my memory, O High King, but I don't think NPUBLISHER concerned small groups of collaborators who were recognized as a studio within their realm of creation and who worked together to create award-winning works? Assuming that it did not, then your reference does not apply. NCORP itself seems very clear that it intends to exclude very small groups of collaborators who are intended to be included in NBIO. We are not talking about a large organisation here; we are really talking about two or three people as the central node of a network. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've dug up the correct link for that - it is WP:NPUBLISHING. It would have applied to any type of publisher had it been adopted in its current form. There's no special treatment for small groups of creative collaborators that perform the roles of both creatives/publishers and larger organizations that might have different people in these roles. And yes, NCORP has a list of particular exclusions such as sports teams and religious organizations and also excludes small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors but no, it doesn't have a generic all-purpose exclusion for "small" and definitely not for "small creative collaborators publishing RPG material". HighKing++ 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the NPUBLISHING proposal has nothing to do with studios of creatives, just as I thought. Cubicle 7 sits nicely in the middle of the terrain mapped out by "entertainment groups, co-authors and co-inventors" - NORG is using examples for a category, not giving an exhaustive list of exclusions. You would see how the subject fits in that terrain, were you to read the chapter from Designers & Dragons Volume 4. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response This is getting a little silly. The NPUBLISHING proposal was specifically in relation to publishers. Which is the type of company that Cubicle 7 is. The example provided in NCORP are because not all "organizations" are easy to define. But some things we can say for definite. Such as, Cubicle 7 is definitely a company registered in Companies House, with a registered company number. Clearly Cubicle 7 a for-profit limited liability company. Unlike the other "organizations" such as listed in NCORP. If you can point to "entertainment groups, co-authors and co-inventors" that have an article here and are also incorporated as for-profit limited liability companies listed in Companies House, put a link here. Otherwise, can we just stick with the reality of applying NCORP? Also, I definintely don't get that idea from reading Des&Dra (but you know, I haven't a clue which chapter you're referring to because you couldn't be bothered to be more precise). HighKing++ 09:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High King, I literally gave the page references for the chapter in this AfD; it is in Volume 4, is 20 pages long, and is entitled "Cubicle 7". I'm sure you can find it. Doctor Who: The Card Game And to suggest that a small group of creatives, whether they are a musical group, an art collective, or a game studio, cease to be covered by the exclusion in NCORP the moment they incorporate is a deliberate misreading of NCORP and, frankly, wikilawyering of the worst sort. As far as your rhetorical request for examples, perhaps let's start with the Beatles. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And back to FourViolas: I still do not agree that the Geeknative falls below the RS threshold (though I concede that my other link included a press release verbatim). The relevant passage from WP:SPS reads, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Andrew Girdwood is a communications practitioner who has been published professionally on gaming in en world and The Scotsman [14], maintains transparency and consistency of standards in Geeknative, and should be considered part of that reliable exception deliberately recognized in WP:SPS. While I understand and applaud WP's skepticism about self-published sources, it doesn't make sense to me to construe the guidelines to exclude the ones that are the best sources of any kind available in a certain niche, as is the case for Geeknative. Something of a nose-spite-face situation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, HighKing, BOZ, and FourViolas: as this is a topic (the suitability of Designers & Dragons) you are in the active discussion of, I feel I need to notify you I have opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard here. Chetsford (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It would have been even better if the notification had been more timely, and if the initial filing has demonstrated a more comprehensive BEFORE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am looking specifically for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability *of the company*. To date I have not managed to find any references that meet the criteria of WP:RS and the criteria of WP:GNG as clarified in WP:NCORP. It is important that references must be independent (as per WP:ORGIND) and provide significant and in-depth coverage of the company.
  • Of the references I've seen in the article, none meet the criteria. Newimpartial claims that Cubicle 7 is discussed extensively in Designers and Dragons. I cannot find that reference. I *can* find references where Cubicle 7's *games/products* are mentioned/discussed. I can even find a reference where Fred Hicks (who runs Designers and Dragons) says As I’ve said before, I like the guys at Cubicle 7, and there are things I like about another game of theirs — Starblazer Adventures — that I’ve talked about before on Deadly Fredly. Heck, I was almost a part of the Dr. Who RPG project, and helped with their initial pitch to the BBC, but ducked out early on due to other time demands. This is a convenient and recent example, is all (which puts a cloud over whether he is "intellectually independent").
  • In another comment Newimpartial says that Ken Hite wrote about them in his "Out of the Box" series at one point. Well, references must exist in order to count (whether in an archive or library, doesn't have to be online) but there's no evidence that this reference exists today so it cannot be taken into consideration. Perhaps if someone can point to an archive? My Google skills can turn up an archive of the website - but a MySQL error fails to return any copy.
  • The Warhammer interview with Dominic McDowall in Tabletop Gaming magazine fails to meet the criteria for establishing. There is zero detail provided about the company in this article other than comments on their Warhammer products (which is not the subject of this article). It specifically fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I have found other references in other copies of the magazine (e.g. Page 13 of June 2018 mentions Lone Wolf:The Realm of Sommerlund), but again, they only discuss or mention the games and provide a mention-in-passing to the company.
  • Finally, the awards. From what I can see, none of the awards are to the company. The awards are for some of the products. For example, the Ennie Awards. In 2012, "The One Ring: Words of the Wise" was nominated in the category of Best Free Product. None of the award categories are for the company. Similarly, the Origins Awards have categories for games and supplements ... but none for a company. Again, similarly for the Lucca "Best in Show" award and the same again for the Golden Geek awards. It would be more correct for the article to state that "Cubicle 7's products have won X awards".
  • I'm happy to change my !vote if any references turn up but for now, while some of the games may be notable, the company fails to meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, on Designers & Dragons. Cubicle 7 occupies a 20-page chapter (Vol. 4, 341-360) which discussed the history and contribution of the company as well as games and their creators. If you don't think that counts as a source for CORPDEPTH, then I am at a loss to imagine what does. Also, Fred Hicks was the publisher, not the writer of the volume, so the publisher's comments about people he likes would not under normal circumstances count against INDEPENDENT.
Also, and With all due respect, O High King, I don't think you are reading NCORP in a balanced fashion as intended, especially under ORGSIG. There is one paragraph weighing against INHERITED notanikity, of course, but there is a second paragraph as follows:
When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.
This means that the effects of the company are to be considered in Notability; the article on a leading company in its field that produces award-winnin≥g games is not, contra the opinion of the nominator, to be treated in exactly the same way as an article on a minor sewer contractor; discussion of the games relates to the notability of the studio producing them, just as is the case with video games for example. Your comment that "None of the awards are for the company" and that therefore they don't count for Notability runs directly counter to the spirit and the letter of ORGSIG, which is, after all, the issue here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to add a paragraph-or-so summary of the company from Designers & Dragons at some point today, but I am pretty busy for the moment. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I agree that the Designers & Dragons 00s book meets the criteria. A very comprehensive history containing much detail of their work. The website doesn't, which is what I was referring to. You make a good argument regarding whether Cubicle 7 "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment...." in relation to the awards won by their games. Certainly, it isn't an argument I've encountered before - that the fact of their games winning awards demonstrates that the company has had a significant/demonstrable effect - but it is compelling and I believe remains in the spirit of the guidelines. I'm now leaning towards a Keep but I'll think a little more and wait to see what others have to say. HighKing++ 09:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Newimpartial - here you seem to be [15] negotiating an AfD, offering to !vote redirect in an entirely separate article provided I withdraw my delete nomination on this article. While I appreciate your willingness to work collaboratively, !vote trading between AfDs is not in the spirit of the AfD process. When I choose to withdraw a nomination it's because a reasonable argument has been advanced which has changed my mind; I don't withdraw in exchange for favorable !votes in other AfDs. You were previously warned by Tyw7 [16] about using AfDs as a stage for personal attacks and, I think, in the spirit of that collegial guidance it also bears noting that AfDs should not be used as a barter market. (edit conflict) While I'm sure you extended this idea in GF, other editors may not perceive it in that way and the perception you might be bartering !votes risks spoilation of all your recent AfD contributions across the board. Thanks for your passion on this topic. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Chet, that is not what I meant. I am simply unwilling to have the content in question merged to an article that is then itself deleted, which is what you appeared to be doing at Doctor Who: The Card Game and which is itself an inappropriate WP:GAME.
There is also nothing wrong with either of us admitting that an article on Cubicle 7 that also includes WP's only discussion of the card games would have stronger references and notability than any of the three articles separately, although if you insist on being the pettier humanoid, I am certainly unable to stop you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to calibrate the intent behind your comment. "if you insist on being the pettier humanoid" - Once again, it's important discussion be limited to issues related to the AfD and not expanded to include denunciations of other editors as this can create an unwelcoming atmosphere that discourages others from participating. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I mean personally, I know all my games industry friends are raving about some of Cubicle 7's latest offerings; I'm aware that's not enough for a !vote but I thought it worth mentioning that these guys are major players in the industry right now with a lot of eyes on them. That said, they won Origin awards, which is pretty significant, are often mentioned in Designers & Dragons, and I don't think anyone should underplay the value of Boardgamegeek as a games news site. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have struck my previous !vote to Delete. There is definitely one good (great!) reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, Designers & Dragons 00s. It is difficult to pinpoint a second and also difficult to find a source that provides details of the company and not one of their products but there are a relatively large number of intervews and reviews that satisfy me that the company is notable. HighKing++ 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way, if Cubicle 7 aren't notable then about the only RPG company operating today that is notable would be like... Wizards of the Coast.Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. (Maybe White Wolf and Fantasy Flight, too? But other than that, yes, I'd probably agree.) Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which, once more, suggests you probably shouldn't be imposing it upon yourself to adjudicate what constitutes a notable RPG publisher since you clearly have some odd opinions on notability in this domain.Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to two points of clarification. In this discussion my role is as participant, not "adjudicator". Also, what "constitutes a notable RPG publisher" on WP is identical to what constitutes a notable company of any kind as we do not currently have inherent notability standards for game companies. Therefore, special knowledge beyond an understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH is not required. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some game publishers operate at arm's length and are properly evaluated on NCORP; others (the paradigmatic case being White Wolf in the '90s) operate more like an atelier or studio and are properly evaluated by CREATIVE. But we can hash all of this out at the RfC or Village Pump discussion on the question, "are RPGs created works subject to NBOOK, and are their creators within scope for CREATIVE?" Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep has become redirect target for several games. Probably squeaks by on notability but barely. More 'benefit of the doubt' to help consensus than any strong feeling on notability. Fails WP:NORG. Specifically the sources provided fail WP:ORGIND because they are essentially niche or trade magazines where they are not straight from the Cubical7 website. The awards are cited to a wiki and the Geeknative interview is just that, an interview, which again fails ORGIND. Jbh Talk 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC) last edited 12:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here the editor appears to be ignoring the 20-page chapter in the main independent, RS that discussed RPGs, as well as the many awards that the publisher has won and its role as a game studio per CREATIVE. Their !vote should therefore be evaluated accordingly. The awards are reliably cited elsewhere, though so had already decided to re-source the Origins awards (three, now) to the authoritative site. In any event, it isn't the sourcing of the article but rather the potential sourcing that matters at AfD, as we all know. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (Fixed indent Jbh Talk 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Please properly indent your replies as you have been asked to.
No, I am not ignoring it. A single entry in an industry specific publication, which as I understand it aims to be comprehensive, does not on its own establish notability. Also, I believe that there is some question above about whether that publication is completely independent of the company and its people so, it would fail ORGIND for the purpose of establishing notability. So we have somewhere between zero and one suitable sources, depending on how one weights the particulars. Jbh Talk 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those reading the above discussion in depth would observe that the question about the independence of Designers & Dragons was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Public use licenses, which do not create a financial interest and therefore do not fall afoul of the intended scope of INDEPENDENT. A!so, the publication in question does not at all intend to be "comprehensive", and while there are chapters for several game studios over the last two decades it is certainly true that most studios/publishers do not receive a full chapter's coverage.
Also note that NBIO, which covers groups of collaborators working closely together, notes that significance may be achieved by a combination of minor mentions, as long as the work is itself significant. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming the Designers & Dragons source is good it is only one source and I am not willing to concede that it is a significant enough work to make a company 'notable' simply by virtue of having an entry. Also NORG, and that is the criterion this topic falls under, specifically disallows aggregating minor coverage for purposes of notability. There are two tables in User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 05 which can be used to analyze sources under NORG. There are seven check boxes which all must be true before a source can be considered adequate for notability purposes. Jbh Talk 23:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so that are are clear, the chapter for Cubicle 7 in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons is not simply "having an entry": it is one of the longer chapters in the book, shorter than those for Paizo Publishing, Mongoose Publishing or Green Ronin, but longer than those for Necromancer Games, Goodman Games or Troll Lord Games, for example. Certainly this source considerably exceeds the minimum standard set in WP:N as substantial coverage.
Also, as noted earlier in the discussion, WP:NCORP specifically excludes "small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)", a description which seems intended to cover exactly the kinds of close networks of collaborators in creation that Cubicle 7 represents. This understanding of game studios affects the way the whole art form of game creation is written about off-Wiki, including standard treatments of the field long before Designers & Dragons, and has also influenced the way articles have been written at WP for over a decade. And I say this as someone more interested in individual than in collective contributions to creation in this area; in spite of my own opinions, I have to respect policy and the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a company therefore NCORP applies. They sell things, they are a commercial enterprise, they are not a band or a sports team they are a company and, quite frankly, no closer familiar with the criteria would give your exclusion argument any credence or weight.
Designers & Dragons is one source and I do not believe that source is sufficient based on my understanding of Wikipedia's content criteria, even if it is found to be RS at RSN. (See [17] for my opinion at RSN) You may think otherwise but I do not. If you want me to change my mind do not make special pleadings or tortured readings of the notability criteria – find more suitable sources per NORG. My typical threshold is three sources all independent from each other and the organization with at least one outside of the niche market. The sources should have something like 150+ words of coverage in each. For this I would probably accept shorter pieces for the other two maybe around 100 words because of Designers & Dragons but they still must pass sigcov. Others may well disagree and I am sometimes wrong but that is my rule-of-thumb. Jbh Talk 05:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Add note about RSN 05:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly what to make of that reply, Jbhuntly, but lots of the small corporations that are specifically excluded from NCORP "sell things", including very many of the artist cooperatives and inventors that are used as examples in the guideline itself. Even very many musical groups have a corporate structure, including indie ones that operate - for their recorded products - in almost exactly the same way as a small game publisher. The fundamentalist reading "they are a company, they sell things, and therefore NCORP applies" is simply incompatible with the exclusion for small networks of collaborators that is built into NCORP.
Now any editor or administrator is entitled to have their own "rules of thumb" when it comes to AfD discussions. Personally, I do not feel that one source is sufficient by itself, but the text of NBIO - which covers small groups of collaborators - is clear that multiple shorter but reliable references can be treated as equivalent to one of the longer ones, and that only two significant RS are generally required; this is particularly true given that CREATIVE, which also applies in this case, clarifies that RS for works contribute to the Notability of their creators. Those would be my rules of thumb, and there are many AfDs before I came along that fit those typical parameters. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of an "artist cooperative" or "inventor" that operates as an incorporated for-profit company? Musical groups do not btw - you will not find "The Rolling Stones Inc" in the company register. Cubicle 7 is not a cooperative or any other type of organization that is specifically listed as a exception. HighKing++ 20:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To start at the top of the food chain, the Beatles were the Beatles Ltd. and then Apple Corps as their corporate identity. This could very quickly turn into a very, very long list. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the source for your obvious confusion. Far more interesting than had you picked, say, The Rolling Stones. "The Beatles Ltd" was originally named "Apple Music" and was renamed in 1967. The original "Apple Music" was incorporated in 1946. The corporation, "The Beatles Ltd", has a separate legal identity from "The Beatles" (the band) and was the music publisher and licensor of at least some of their work. None of the members of The Beatles (the band) were shareholders of the company in 1967 although George Harrison and Yoko Ono were directors.
So keeping with the comparison between music creatives and RPG creatives: The band members = the creatives = the authors. The don't fall under NCORP but CREATIVE.
But, any article on "The Beatles Limited" *would* fall under NCORP. Same as Cubicle 7. HighKing++ 10:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a gamer here, but to my eyes this looks non-notable and the discussion regarding the 20 page chapter is not particularly relevant here as there is so much WP:SPS in this article. If a comprehensive article could be written using multiple reliable independent sources with in depth coverage, would reverse me decision. - Scarpy (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy-compliant !Vote, per WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's copy pasta from another AfD. Will add, notability is not search results. If you can't write an article based on WP:RS, then it's only hypothetically notable and still fails WP:V and WP:OR and any number of other guidelines. If you want to ensure the future of this article, look for WP:RS and write encyclopedic content with it, don't waste time arguing on the AfD page. - Scarpy (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the life of me, I don't know what you're talking about; the current version of the article [18] has five RS, with more to be added. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right off the bat, 4, 5, 10, 12 are WP:SPS. 6 is a blog, and there's no specific link to the content it's citing. These references and the content based on them should just be removed. That's already more than 1/3 of the citations. citations 2 and 13 seems like plausible WP:RS. Are gamesinsdustry.biz, gama.org, boardgamegeek.com and geeknative.com WP:RS? Do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Are they peer-reviewed? Can it be demonstrated that this is true or are the just glorified blogs? It's hard to tell. So... no, I don't see much obvious WP:RS here. I'm going to be hardnosed and assume no until shown otherwise. That leaves you with two WP:RS which is only "multiple" but the most charitable of definitions. So my vote is to delete. If you want me to change it, do better research. - Scarpy (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gama is an authority on the awards it administers, which is highly relevant to Notability in this context. The same is true for the ENies - you can't just read the word "blog" and assume it's unreliable; WP:RS is quite clear that some organizations disseminate content through pages called "blog". :)
Gameindustry.biz is an independent publisher with editorial oversight, and geeknative falls into the category of SPS that are considered reliable because published by an expert who has published in the field professionally for established RS - but that wasn't included in my count for Notability because it's an interview. 2 and 13 are reliable, and the chapter in 2 is 20 pages long.
Is that satisfactory? Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I can see a citation that's just a link to an index of articles, especially when it contains the word "blog" in the URL, I can be completely justified in my skepticism of the content that precedes its citation as it's not specifically citing anything and anything it did cite would have to prove it's a blog that also happens to be WP:RS. You can assume something doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy if it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is basically what WP:NEWSBLOG says.
Award-giving alone does not make a source reliable. WP:ORG actually lists awards as examples of trivial coverage.
To your claims about the gamesindustry.biz and geeknative, I can only say what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. looking at gamesindustry.biz, yes they do claim to have the highest journalistic standards, but a claim that one fact-checks and is accurate is different than a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I also see that the person who runs geeknative doesn't claim to be an "expert" on anything and I haven't seen anything that would establish him as one.
All of this is kind of irrelevant to me because, as I've said before, if this organization is so eminently notable that it is unquestionably deserving of a Wikipedia article, it should be discussed in-depth in multiple sources that leave no question as to their reliability. The sources used wouldn't be the ones that are used here. Even the 20 page chapter in the book that's so frequently mentioned had to go through RSN from the discussion I'm reading. - Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gameindustry.biz is an independent publisher Gamesindustry.biz appears to be a trade media site; we should probably treat it like we treat Business Journals (good for facts, not notability). Chetsford ([[User ::talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 23:08, 21 August 201:8 (UTC)
Scarpy and Chetsford, you are both employing criteria that are contrary to policy (and Chetsford, you appear to be doing so under questionable circumstances, since you have !voted for the merger of other articles into this one). But have a great day!Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Do you remember that ANI which just closed today about your you failing to AGF? " you appear to be doing so under questionable circumstances, since you have !voted for the merger of other articles into this one" is a failure to is just such a thing. I would have no issue opening up another one if such behavior continues. I strongly suggest you simply ignore Chetsford and let the closer sort things out.
Also, just hours ago you asked about any issues I observed with your ANI participation and I pointed out disruptive bludgeoning [19]. This and this other thread are good examples of such behavior. Jbh Talk 23:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure that noting a new, different non-compliant !vote constitutes a BLUDGEON, but I will also take your perspective into account, jbh.
What I find harder to understand is your failure to AGF about my own comments here, and your apparent need to generalize about "my behavior" rather than simply have a discussion about the merits of the AfD. I hope in any further AfDs to which we both contribute, we will be able to keep the discussion on the page to the issues of the specific AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of "non-compliant" is well … questionable but that does not matter, clogging up AfD threads does though. It is the responsibility of the closer to weigh !votes and, as I mentioned before, your WP:BLUDGEONing is disruptive. You asked me to comment on your AfD behavior and I have given you feedback on what I see as an example of problematic behavior. If you are no longer interested in feedback I will not give it — you have had enough people point out the problems they see so you can not claim not to know it is a problem so, if it continues I am all but certain the sanction you avoided or worse will be imposed in the, likely near, future.
PS You get no AGF for accusing the same editor you repeatedly called a troll etc of making an argument "under questionable circumstances". Not. One. Tiny. Bit. Because, well, you have said repeatedly you would stop assuming bad faith and you have repeatedly been unable to keep your word. Asking for me to assume good faith once you have demonstrated bad faith repeatedly is either naive or trolling, I will presume it is naivete for the nonce. Jbh Talk 00:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying - I really do - but I'm confused that you're saying it at AfD, rather than, say, your Talk page or mine. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just randomly Googling, not sure what value it is, but Geek & Sundry has a few links tagged for Cubicle 7: [20] and I found this on ICv2: [21] and [22] and on Bleeding Cool, I found [23] Then I went on Google News, and found this at The Escapist: [24] and [25] and [26] and that's about all I felt like looking at for now. BOZ (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 4 product announcements which are simply mentions of the company; The ICv2 are the definition of 'trivial coverage' per NCORP; and one page that just has some game box pictures. The notability guidelines require sources which provide independent, reliable and significant coverage of the company. None of the sources presented above do that. Jbh Talk 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, it was random. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, firstly, a big thankyou to the above editors for a fascinating afd (at around 8,000 words compared to 700 words for the article being discussed it almost makes the "Coola's big afd list but will probably go into my "Hmmmmmm, interesting.....AFDwise" list anyway), now, i am amazed that a company that has won/been nominated for multiple awards and has numerous wikiarticles about its products may not be deemed notable for its own article (if C7 was a person this would have been a slamdunk), although both sides of this argument, ahem, discussion put forward excellent points, i am leaning towards a Keep, as WP:ORG "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.", i believe C7 is one of these exceptions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on the games in this article that are represented on Wikipedia. Interesting that during this long debate, nobody bothered to update the Age of Sigmar 2nd edition info, from a reliable source. [[27]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cubicle_7&oldid=1209369209"