Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 5. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU note: Unsurprisingly, the accounts ArkRe and 03SadOnions (article creator) very possibly belong to the same person, who very possibly was also the source of the extensive sock comments at original AfD and DRV. Amalthea 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough independent sources to pass the notability guidelines. The creator has been interviewed twice (by PC Powerplay and Digitally Download, which admittedly may or may not be reliable, though there's no evidence that it's self published, at least) and the game has been covered in at least two major print publications - a version was included on the cover disc of the December 2009 issue of PC Powerplay, and I also believe that the game was also briefly commented on in PC Gamer (October 2011), in an article about RPG Maker ("Level up: the best games made with RPG Maker") that listed this and a few other games - though I don't have access to this article and cannot verify this, though I remember the game's creator mentioning it in an update. There could be even more coverage to come soon, as the creator announced a sequel is on the way that is intended for commercial release, which will probably bring more attention to this game in the gaming community. Article is well written and doesn't seem to be doing any harm at the moment, so why not just wait and see what happens? ArkRe (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is that really enough to pass the WP:GNG though? To summarize your stance, you've given 2 sources that you're not sure if they are reliable sources, and one sources that gives it a passing mention. Is that really significant coverage? I'm still neutral on this one, I'm just trying to understand the argument. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was in a rush to type out my argument and I may have made some things sound ambiguous. I wasn't questioning whether PC Powerplay was reliable - it's the leading PC gaming magazine in Australia and New Zealand - I was merely saying that I personally was not sure if Digitally Downloaded is reliable. As for the mention of the game PC Gamer, unless I am mistaken (as although I don't have access to it, the RPG Maker community did a little news feature on it when the article came out as it covered quite a few notable RPGM games) it was more than a passing mention - there was a paragraph summarising the premise of each game and providing some choice comments about its gameplay. The comments I made about the game's popularity in the community and the upcoming sequel were intended to try and back up my keep !vote by pointing out that this game has somewhat of a following in the RPG Maker community, and the Notability guidelines also lists having a cult following as an indicator of notability. I'm not sure if it counts in this case, but Legionwood is indeed one of the most popular free games to come out of that community - so much so that the creator is releasing the sequel commercially and is fully supported by his fanbase. I hope this comment's made my argument a little clearer. ArkRe (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please semi-protect this AfD so as to avoid the sockpuppet problems we had with the last one.—S Marshall T/C 06:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Done. T. Canens (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After mulling it over for a while I'm inclined towards weak keep. This is very borderline on notability but for me, the PC Powerplay stuff just carries it over the bar. I mean, including it on a coverdisk plus interviewing the creator is worth something even if it isn't strictly speaking a secondary source. I can't agree with Sergecross73 that PC Powerplay is in any way unreliable and I don't believe ArkRe intended to question its reliability (unclear though his grammar might have been). Digitally Downloaded is a (very) small-press e-zine. It does have editorial oversight, from a named editor, and is editorially independent from its subject. Therefore it does not contravene anything in WP:RS. I have to say that these sources are not thrilling ones and I wouldn't personally choose to base an article on them, but I'm not seeing sufficient grounds for deletion now the article's here.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The PC Powerplay article isn't just an interview with the creator. There's also a half-page long "preview" of the game that reads much like a traditional review (I believe this is referenced in the article under "Critical Reception"). Also, when I checked on Digitally Downloaded's site, I wasn't actually able to access the "About Us" page, for some reason, hence my concerns as to its reliability. If there is clear evidence of editorial oversight however, that's enough to satisfy me that it's reliable. ArkRe (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't personally questioning PC PowerPlay's notability, I had thought ArkRe was with the way he worded that, but I now see that's not what was intended. I'm unfamiliar with the source, so if you guys think it's reliable, I'm not opposing it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article attracks problems, article details well beyond purported reliable sources, article includes non Wikipedia reliable sources. We don't need such a problem, especially one where there is not enought reilable sources to meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any reliable sources on Robert Grixti, Legionwood, or Tale of the Two Swords. (other than American LegionWood Bat Baseball League)[1] Where is the reliable source that supports the statement in the article, "This early release of the game was included on a cover disc with the December 2008 issue of Australian magazine PC Powerplay"? If no reliable source writes about such a fact, then that fact doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, even if original research shows it true, and it certainly doesn't go towards meeting WP:GNG. The things said in an interview by those connected to the topic is not independent of the topic and doesn't count towards meeting GNG either. What the interview says may count towards GNG, but that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote from me, but the passage that you quote above is indeed referenced (it was a print magazine and if you look in the reference list, it is clearly there). I don't want to take part in this AfD for fear of problems (I don't care either way what happens to the article, to be honest I havent played the game) but I thought it was fair to point out that you seemed to overlook a reference that is actually properly listed and cited. The PC Powerplay magazine itself is cited. Also, "Robert Grixti" isn't the creator of the game, the article lists "D. Robert Grixti" as the creator. Searching this (it appears the extra initial does make all the difference) does indeed bring up a considerable amount of coverage of him, mainly links to published works but nothing to do with this game. Just thought it was prudent to at least search for the creator by his proper name. Finally the detail of the article doesn't seem to go beyond reliable sources at all. The only uncited elements of the article are the gameplay and plot information, things that would be self-evident to someone who has played the game, I have never seen a Wikipedia article cite an external source to summarise the basic gameplay mechanics of an RPG for example or the basic premise of its plotline - the development and reception sections -- parts of the article that would NOT be evident from playing the game and would need to be cited -- ARE cited with external references RPGMakerMan (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And isn't "the article attracts problems" basically just amounting to an "i dont like it" argument. It isnt a good thing if the article attracts issues, but if it passes the neccesary criteria to exist then it should be considered on its own merits. RPGMakerMan (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough evidence of notability. Digitally Downloaded and RPGMaker.net aren't established as being reliable to support the page. PC Powerplay may have some merit, though I'm not sure of the editorial discretion used when The Bunker was opened to the community nor how significant the coverage was. The other references are first-party or do not contain significant coverage, and it's hard to say if it would meet the significant coverage threshold even if DD were considered reliable. —Ost (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced the sourcing establishes notability. For me, sourcing for notability is not simply an exercise in counting. I will not put the same weight to coverage in a small e-zine as I would for coverage in PC Powerplay. AS such, I do think that the coverage is sufficient to meet notability. - Whpq (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2012 (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.