Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necromancer Games

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancer Games

[edit]

Procedural nomination. The article was originally tagged with PROD by cryogenesis (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Not-notable per WP:CORP". I have reason to believe that this tag was put up in bad faith since that same user has recently removed the prod tags on articles Spellbinder Games (USA) and Apotheosis Publishing and voted to keep both on the resulting AfDs and has indicated his feeling that he is being unfairly targeted. I have therefore removed the PROD tag and placed this AfD instead. Pascal.Tesson 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Also interesting that you vehemently supported keeping on the AfD for a single new d20 book, Dreadmire. Very much looks like sour grapes, I'm afraid. Necromancer Games is very much better known in the roleplaying world than Spellbinder Games. -- Necrothesp 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Necromancer is still an influencial d20 publisher. There are not many left. That has to stand for something. sesampier 18:38, 22 October (UTC)
  • Comment Did you actually read the article you are voting to delete? The article itself notes the only products put out by Necromancer Games itself. The other books were actually developed by other companies and then later released (under license) by Necromancer Games. Not the same thing as publishing your own books. "Necromancer Games has only published four books" is a true statement.--Cryogenesis 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is absolutely NOT a true statement. Most of their products were developed by themselves, and a not insignificant number were actually written by the company's founders. Though, as you yourself said, it is a moot point.--RobNoxious 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is on a game studio imprint. All of these products have received the Necromancer Games imprint. Even if you trim it down to only original products offered by Necromancer Games, the total is still significantly more than "four books."--Rosicrucian 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You speak for Wikipedia now? The ENnies predate this website by a year, and I do not find Wikipedia "trivial." Please see my comment below. In the industry under discussion, the ENnies are absolutely not "Trivial." How long the Award has been presented is inconsequential.--RobNoxious 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI for those that don't know, the "EN World" website was originally created as a message board to support a community project to design a campaign world for 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons. The "ENnies" started in 2002, hardly enough time to become "significant". They are currently the equivalent of a bowling trophy, albeit in the gaming community. I am sure they are very important to some people, just like a bowling trophy. Again, no offense to the people at the EN World website, who I am sure are good people that work very hard.--Cryogenesis 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia was founded June 20th, 2003, are you saying that because The Ennies started in 2002, merely one year before the site you are fighting to keep something off of, it is somehow insignificant? "A little perspective, please," indeed. The Comic Book industry has the Eisners, Motion Pictures; The Oscars, Journalism; The Pulitzer, the Gaming Industry has The Ennies. It is not the equivilent of a Bowling Trophy, it is the equivilent of winning a championship in the Professional Bowling Association. There is absolutely no more prestigious and recognized award in d20 gaming. (Which itself was established in 1999-2000, at the earliest.) I defy you to name another that comes close in this industry.--RobNoxious 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Monte Cook, who is by far bigger fry in the RPG industry than almost anyone outside WotC, seems quite pleased to have won three of these "bowling trophies". Cheers --Pak21 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't really making anything different, but the ENnies started in 2001, not in 2002. -- Saturnin55 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Wizards of the Coast, THE premier producer of d20 products and authors of the Open Gaming Licence itself, lauded, mentioned and used content from Necromancer Games in their official sourcebook "Monster Manual II." On page 220 of that book Necromancer Games is refered to as "One of the very first d20 publishers..." Two original monsters, created by Necromancer Games, "Scorpionfolk" and "Razor boar," are officially indoctrinated into Dungeons and Dragons canon, officially statted up and approved. A sidebar describes the Open Game Licence and Necromancers role within that, praising their work and mentioning some of their early releases, it goes on to say,"As an example of the good work to be found in that collection, we've 'adopted' these two creatures and decided to include them in an official Dungeons & Dragons Product." Wizards of the Coast is very much independant of Necromancer Games, and the sidebar is clearly not a press release or simple statement of the company's existence and how to reach them. This, along with Dragon Magazine's coverage of The Ennie's, both the nominations and the winners over several years, including Necromancer Games on multiple occasions, should easily satisfy Part 1 of WP:CORP. The Company's founder has also been featured and interviewed in Polyhedron Magazine, which is now part of Dungeon Magazine. In 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons, in the d20 Gaming industry, there are no higher sources than Wizards of The Coast and Dragon Magazine. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to delete a Necromancer Games article. It may also be noted that the article is, as yet, incomplete; The products listed are not the only original products released by the company. Indeed, many are missing, and at least one that is listed is a licenced product, albeit a significant one. (Judge's Guild) This, of course, is an editting problem, not one of legitimacy. --RobNoxious 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Necromancer Games article was created in response to the creation of the Spellbinder Games article, a company that was at odds with Necromancer Games over the hiring of their author, Randy Richards. Necromancer Games has trivial accomplishments in the area of "Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition d20 game books" (can you get more esoteric than that???). Every D&D book publisher that has been publishing such books for 5 years has such accomplishments, and Necromancer Games may have more than most trivial publishers. But to suggest that the company has some "lasting historical value" is absurd in the extreme. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless its an encyclopedia on the history of games, wherein I am sure they would get a footnote. I suggest you read this: WP:CORP--Cryogenesis 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest you read the WP:CORP, actually, as you don't seem to really grasp it. Particularly this part:
"A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations2 except for the following:
  • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories."
(emphasis mine)
Length of operation is not addressed, nor is the signifigance of the industry in which the Company operates. (By this last argument you imply that any third party publisher of Dungeons and Dragons which was founded after the writing of the Open Game Licence is insignificant. The rules do not back you up.)
Necromancer Games has been featured, mentioned and credited in Source books published by other companies, specifically meeting the criteria listed above. I can think of NO other company from which Wizards of the Coast has printed Open Content, as they did in Monster Manual II. Goodman Games has also featured their work in at least one, if not more, of their "Dungeon Crawl Classics" module Series. Further, they have, as I mentioned before, been featured in the trade magazines Dragon and Polyhedron/Dungeon, not simply in press releases or "trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories," but in articles covering, among other things, their nominations for various ENnie Awards, their use of the Open Game Licence, their Licencing and release of Judges Guild Products, their work with Gary Gygax etc., etc.
This Encyclopedia has now expanded to include publishers of the 3.0 and 3.5 Edition Dungeons and Dragons Game. It is only right that Necromancer games be one of the first to have an article, as they were one of the first to start publishing. Work is being done to expand the Article itself by fans, as there is much that is missing that may be of interest to people who play this game. Frankly, had you not made such strenuous objections to the article, I doubt it would have caught the attention it has now recieved, that will now, likely, transform it into a thorough and interesting page. So, thank you for that.--RobNoxious 22:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go ahead and address this, for transparancy's sake, though normally I would just ignore it: It is true that I registered this account immediately prior to entering this discussion, however, it is the only Wikipedia account I have ever registered. While I use Wikipedia on a regular basis, I have, up 'til now, not found the need to edit anything. You might say I've been "Lurking" to this point. My screenname is the one I use across multiple boards and websites, my identity can, really, be easily established. The Web is a big place, but shyness is not something from which I suffer. I made it a point before posting in this debate to read and examine the protocol surrounding such things, and I have attempted to stay within those boundries. I also made it a point to read the "Opposing Side's" arguments and concerns, and the Rules he wished to invoke. They seemed, in this case, pretty clear, so I felt confident in advancing my argument. (I used quotes above as, though we disagree on this matter, it seems counter-productive to make an "enemy" of anyone. I would like to keep animosity to a minimum. I didn't start posting here to find foes.) I will make it a point to post links to other places I have surfaced on the web in my profile. A quick I.P. check should provide reasonable verification that I am not an Alternate I.D. (If my long-windedness is not enough.) Now, here are some other things that I am Not: I am NOT employed by Necromancer Games, I am NOT a professional writer of any sort and I am NOT using a new I.D. to escape accountability for my words and edits. I think I may have seen The Meat Puppets play live in the 80's, but I'm not in the band, if you can dig that. I AM a fan of Necromancer Games and their products. I AM an active member of their message boards. I HAVE exchanged e-mails with the company's owners, though not regarding anything to do with Wikipedia, in fact I don't think they are even paying attention to this debate. I AM a newbie here, though not to the internet at large. However, as the Wiki ettiquette page itself says, "We were all new once." If my easily verifiable arguments are discounted due to my "Newness," it bodes ill for Wikipedia at large. (Though grains of salt are, of course, expected. Go ahead and verify my claims about the publisher. And myself. Please.) With that, I look forward to a long association with this excellent website. Thank you. --RobNoxious 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Necromancer Games is an established publisher in the d20 industry, known for several quality products. They had a lot of quality authors writing for them, which are well known in the industry like Gary Gygax, Mike Mearls, Lance Hawvermale, Casey Christofersson, Patrick Lawinger, Ari Marmell. They are certainly not an anecdoctical d20 gaming company as their multiples ENnies can testify. Necromancer Games have contributed to the d20 gaming business with a lot of Open Gaming Content like the Tome of Horrors. -- Saturnin55 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely, definitely. The user's nomination is based on his skewed perspectives. BOZ
  • This was posted at the Necromancer Games Website in a thread about this entry. You can find the original thread here.[2] I am pasting the post in its entirety:

I dont really know how to edit that stuff to post my thoughts on Wiki, or if I am even allowed to put in my comments.


But if I am, could someone post this on my behalf.

"My name is Clark Peterson. I am the president and founder of Necromancer Games, Inc. I was thrilled to see a Wiki entry for Necro (as we are called). I was equally disheartened to see a disgruntled prior writer who we terminated our relationship with for clear copyright violations and a stated intent to continue such copyright violations nominate the entry for deletion. I, frankly, don't know whether or not Necromancer Games is relevant enough for an entry. That is not up to me. That is up to you. I respect your decision. But there is a good deal of misinformation posted here that I would like to clear up so that the powers that be can make an informed decision.

First, to understand the relevance of Necro, you have to understand roleplaying and open gaming. Dungeons and Dragons is the leading roleplaying game of all time. It was created years ago by Gary Gygax, among others, and published by TSR hobbies. For years, TSR was incredibly strict with their license of D&D. In fact, TSR very notoriously sued several other companies who tried to make compatible products to D&D. For years, no third parties were allowed to make D&D compatible products. That all changed in 1997 when TSR sold the D&D brand to Wizards of the Coast ("WotC") who then developed the Third Edition of the D&D rules released in 2000. The brand manager of D&D, Ryan Dancey, made a very bold move. He convinced the powers at WotC to open the D&D rules up and to create "open gaming," creating an open game content license similar to the various software open licenses. This was a HUGE move in the RPG industry. Because of the name of the open license (which also included a logo called the "d20 logo") companies created using the open game license came to be known as "d20 companies."

This is where Necro and I come in. I was one of the early contributors to the creation of the d20 license. I worked with others in the formative stages of the license to get it in a form publishers would work with. In fact, the draft version of the license--which many publishers worked under for some time until the license was finalized--was written by Ryan Dancey directly to me. As a result, I created Necromancer Games. Necromancer Games was one of the first companies to be created to take advantage of this revolutionary idea known as open gaming. In fact, Necromancer Games has the distinction of being the very first company to release any open gaming content under the license--namely, an adventure called the Wizard's Amulet. So, if open gaming is relevant, it cant get any more relevant than Necromancer Games. But there is more.

Necromancer Games, despite comments above, has released approximately 40 products, many being hardback books. We are not just an imprint. The vast majority of our products are written in house. Even materials that we "update" for the new open gaming rules involve extensive rules creation and additional writing by us. Our products have featured writing by none other than Gary Gygax, the creator of D&D and Rob Kuntz, one of the original founders of D&D. Necromancer Games has the distinction of being probably the biggest supporter of open gaming, releasing the Tome of Horrors, a book that not only is all open content, but includes instruction on how to use the content--a first in open gaming.

We have also recieved unmatched industry praise. I personally, and Necromancer Games specificially, was selected as an "expert" by Dungeon Magazine--one of two official monthly magazines specifically for Dungeons and Dragons--to judge the best adventures of all time for D&D. Our opinions were published in Dungeon Magazine Issue 116. The bio ascribed to me and Necro reads (written by Dungeon Mag, not by me): "Clark Peterson, an attorney by trade, Clark doubles as the president of Necromancer Games, perhaps the most prolific adventure publisher in the d20 industry. Necromancer's products boast a 'First Edition feel' that hearkens back to the quality of many of the classic adventures listed in the panel's top 30. Peterson's professional credits (all through Necromancer) include Rappan Athuk: The Dungeon of Graves, The Crucible of Freya and The Player's Guide to the Wilderlands."

In addition, as mentioned by others, we have recieved numerous industry awards. Much comment has been made that the ENNie awards are relatively recent. That is true. The reason, however, is that open gaming is a very new and revolutionary idea. These awards couldnt have existed previously because open gaming and the d20 logo didnt exist previously. Necromancer Games is one of only two companies to be nominated every year the awards have been in existence for consideration as the Best Overall Publisher. We have won numerous industry awards.

I recognize that d20 publishers are indeed a small niche in the world and perhaps that niche industry is too small for a Wiki entry. If that is the case, then that is the case. I have no quarrel with that. However, in my view, Open Gaming is a significant revolution in roleplaying and if any company in d20 is relevant, it is Necromancer Games. As demonstrated above, the industry clearly agrees.

I hope this helps clear up any misconceptions about Necromancer Games, our role in d20, the industry and the status of our publications."

Clark

posted by--RobNoxious 10:52, 25 October 2006 (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/Necromancer_Games&oldid=1069822393"