Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPGnet

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnet

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable website. Has 6 references. 2 are to the website itself (not independent). 4 make no reference of the website (they're articles used by the website and used as references to show that the website uses them) (not significant coverage). A Google News search] produces no results and a Google News Archive search either produces non-reliable sources or articles about RPG some sort of .NET launch of whole or partial migration of RPG applications (I have no idea what that means other than it doesn't have to do with the subject of the article). OlYeller^Talktome 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This website has a sizable forum. As you can see on the talk page, several users of the website have demanded that their opinion be left on the talk page and threatened to revert my removals per WP:FORUM as vandalism. I fully expect several new anons to come to this discussion to vote. OlYeller^Talktome 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - Don't think it should be deleted at this time. Ol yeller is moving too fast and aggressively IMO. Within the gaming community it is notable (as are EN World, Pen and Paper Games, and THERPGSITE among others). RPGnet is probably the foremost site for table top rpg reviews. However there is considerable debate over the website because of its moderation policies and because of a perception that there is a heavy liberal bias on some of its subforums.

The problem is it is a gaming website and the gaming community is small enough that any relevant news will appear on online blogs, online rpgnews sites, forum news features, etc. As a gamer I believe things relevant to the hobby are notable enough (and that our community is sizeable enough) to have wiki articles on them. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Yeller: no one demanded anything of you. You went ahead and deleted legitimate posts that were part of a discussion about the political composition of the forum. You did so more than once. When you were challenged you used wikipolicy as bludgeons for removing the sort of content that is on virtually any wiki article discussion page (and it appeared to be done with the intent to derail the discussion). Please stop acting like a mod. You are an editor. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a single google search seems like an early way to conclude something isn't notable. Have you checked the gaming trade magazines, game magazines, etc? Did you do a search of the kobold monthlies? Have you bothered to examine Knights of the Dinner Table? There are a number of gaming news sources out there (in print) that you won't find searchable on google. Google is not the final word in these matters. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.110.177.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - As this new user isn't familiar with AfD format, I've added a "Keep" !vote before their comments. If the user or anyone else feels that "Keep" does not represent their !vote, please feel free to change it. It should also be noted that the anon is an SPA account. OlYeller^Talktome 23:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 98.110.177.20 - Your opinion that the subject is notable isn't backed up by any reliable sources; only your own opinion (see WP:OR). The problem you pointed out isn't a reason to include the opinion of non-reliable sources; it's a reason why the article doesn't belong on WP. Yes, you're correct, no one demanded anything of me. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy improving the project. I removed the comments from the talk page because it was becoming a WP:FORUM for you and others to state your opinion on the subject of the article and not the article itself. Also note that I've written a lengthy description of why it should be removed on the talk page and the only counterarguments you've presented is that the subject is so small, no one knows about it. I've already commented on the single Google search you mention above and suggested that you provide a reliable sources which have still failed to do. I haven't checked gaming trade magazines or game magazines (I'm not even sure there's a difference) but I have checked the most widely used new aggregator on the planet and discussed the results above. Are you saying that Google isn't able to produce a single article that's found in other reliable sources? You're right that Google isn't the final word on these matters but if sources are so abundant, please provide a few for this discussion. OlYeller^Talktome 23:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please don't edit my posts for me thank you. I believe you are engaged in bully editing at this point. I provided a number of possible sources rpgnet appears in. I also think we need to establish what online sources are admissable, because there are plenty of online rpg news sites as well (and they rarely come up on google news search. Any good researcher knows google has serious limitations. I suggest we take more time to collect sources and attract interested editors rather than steamrolling ahead. There is no need to rush on this article.98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting your response was a courtesy for you and other editors. I'm not sure how I've bullied and I'm sure you won't be able to prove such. I don't appreciate the personal attack but I'm guessing you feel bullied because I've countered every argument you've made and backed up my arguments with WP policy. You're new to WP so it won't be surprising to anyone that you're not familiar with WP policies and guidelines and that's not your fault but it doesn't exempt this article from the same policies.

You have actually provided zero references (if you have, feel free to paste them into this discussion). Your suggestion is noted but AfDs don't just go away because you want them to. OlYeller^Talktome 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being condescending. There should be more time to look for sources on this one. And we need to discuss what online gaming news sources will and will not be admissable.98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to change my !vote if anyone can provide some decent sources that use RPGnet as a secondary reference. So far, I've seen two that are about as watered down as they come. OlYeller^Talktome 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a member of the RPGnet community. Those coming here to defend the RPGnet article I recommend: do your homework. That is, if the article does not currently meet notability guideline, find the resources that establish notability so there is no question. Look in your gaming print mags, your podcasts, your rpg news sites, and even mainstream news sources. RPGnet is a major hub for the rpg community with lots of hits, so I believe that such sources probably exist, it's just a matter of finding them and documenting them. If you need help adding a source you have found to the article, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>IAR keep I agree there isn't much in coverage about the site (at least that I can find). There are however a LOT of refrences to the site in reliable sources that use this site a the "defacto" introduction to roleplaying games . A Google book search turns up tons of references to various specific pages [1], [2], and plenty more. A news search turns up similar references [3] and [4] for example. It's pretty much the de facto site for learning about RPGs and has plenty of reliable sources (dozens if not hundreds) that use it as such. This is a classic case where WP:N doesn't fit. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey Hobit. I'm not familiar with "IAR keep" and I'm not seeing it in WP:AFDFORMAT. Can you elaborate on the phrase, please? My opinion on the references you gave are as follows: [5] is a book that only references the website and does not constitute significant coverage. [6] doesn't mention RPGnet at all, only RPGs. [7] only uses RPGnet as a reference in its study and does not constitute significant coverage. [8] makes no reference to RPGnet at all (the link points to this article).

Did either of you (Sang and Hobit) read these articles? Why should this be a case that WP:N doesn't apply? OlYeller^Talktome 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read both the book links and one article; the other appears to be behind a paywall. As for IAR, I'm not convinced it will be needed. RPGnet sees a lot of traffic and is a pretty big hub in the online gaming world. I believe the sources should be out there. It's just a matter of finding them; this provides at least some evidence of its status as a hub in the meantime.- Sangrolu (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer both questions. First of all WP:IAR is the policy which basically says "don't let the rules get in the way of doing the right thing". It is one of those things that needs to be applied carefully. I'm arguing that WP:N doesn't anticipate a situation where a topic is recognized as important by many reliable sources, but none of them cover it in any real detail. A news archive and book search show dozens, and maybe more than a hundred sources that cite RPG.net (I only walked the first few pages of each search and a majority were relevant). I'd say we've hit on a topic which is commonly referenced by others but rarely described. A similar situation happens with academics--we have reliable sources (their schools) that provide bios, but only their work is cited, not them. We keep those folks around per WP:PROF. I'm claiming a similar situation here. It's a fairly weak !vote and only carries the day if there is a strong sense that it should. Which is exactly how WP:IAR should work. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice finds, Hobit, I find them compelling. Of course, some of them should be added to the article in some capacity to help deflect accusations of non-notability. - Sangrolu (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. If other reliable secondary sources simply assume a site is authoritative, that's good enough for me. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hobit makes a strong case. Those look like acceptable references. If they weren't a lot of other notable subjects on wikipedia need deletion. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not seeing enough reliable sources here to show notability. I'm actually a fan of RPG.net, and use the forums quite often... but that doesn't mean it's notable per Wikipedia's standards. Maybe third parties will take notice of the site in the future, but it just doesn't seem to be there yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Third parties have certainly taken notice of this site. As I say, there are many many reliable sources that cite this website. I agree though that there isn't coverage of the site itself. Is that enough per WP:N? No. Do I think it should be enough? I do. I'm curious what you think about that. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is why I asked if you read the references. You keep saying "many many" and "several" but have only provided four references.
    1. One is essays written by people that are published on RPGnet which could be considered not even RPGnet content but content it published (does a reliable source citing two essays published by RPGnet establish notability?).
    2. The second isn't really verifiable as it's simply citing an entire edition of a journal and not what was actually written about or referenced from RPGnet.
    3. The third is behind a paywall but from the description, it may be using RPGnet's community as a primary source or as a reference (it's not significant coverage of RPGnet but people here feel that it being used as a reference can establish notability so I'll go with this one).
    4. The fourth and last you've provided is an article that mentions an author who's published work that can be purchased at RPGnet (how much more watered down can this get?).
  - From my count, you've loosely provided only two references that maybe use RPGnet as a reference. In my opinion, there's zero that have been verified. While I can get on board that if "several" or "many many" notable sources use RPGnet as a reference, it can be notable, you never really provide any of these references past the two. Can you provide any more or will we continue to establish notability with "many many" and "several" as references? OlYeller^Talktome 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All 4 do. Just do a Google news archive search and a book search on rpg.net. There are some misses but there are a lot of hits. book search [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (that last is a directory entry). Those are from the first 2 pages, and I left off one reference to a (apparently popular but now defunct) James Joyce page hosted there. The news archives search is less successful but I count 4 or 5 references in the first 2 pages. [18]. Again, that makes some 13-15 sources using rpg.net as a source only looking at the first 20 Ghits each from a book and news archive search. The book ones seem to keep going and going. And that excludes some questionable ones (someone's bio, a cite to a review from rpg.net praising the author). Hobit (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - These new sources definitely seem more reliable themselves and in their use of RPGnet as a source. I can't retract my nomination but this does seem like an IAR case. I've never been a fan of IAR and think it's overused but I'm sold. OlYeller^Talktome 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are the Keep !voters sure that they're not letting the ends justify the means? To me, this seems like any other non-notable website/forum but this one happens to have a lot of WP users who may be jumping on board this newly constructed reason for inclusion that has, at best, barely been satisfied. I'm on board for the reason (reliable sources using it as a reference) but I'm not feeling that it has been satisfied. OlYeller^Talktome 22:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the sources above help. Again, if you follow the book search, I think you'll find that there are dozens of reliable sources using rpg.net. I was actually surprised by this (I don't read rpg.net, I do however read and contribute to enworld). But apparently rpg.net has been around for a long long time (one of those cites appear to be from 1995!). Hobit (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. With it being that old, I hope we can get it into the article.
Request - This article has a lot of unsourced information and what seems to be WP:OR. If you're interested in improving the article, I'd like to request that you help out with a few edits. There's a large group of new anons on the talk page that aren't completely clear with the concept of WP:OR and I'm afraid that the article may turn into a large user opinion piece. Most notably, there seem to be some editors who have been banned and/or would like to include that the website has a strong political bias with only a Xanga blog article as a reference. Anyway, I won't drag this conversation into this AfD. If you'd like to help out, I'd greatly appreciate it. An article about a website this old deserves to be written well. OlYeller^Talktome 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the article is a hodgepodge of fan-generated content coupled with owner-generated "kudos" and claims, I'd say delete it. The fact that their page-view reference (which was allegedly used to garner advertising dollars) turned out to be a locked, non-supporting reference (which was challenged and afer much back-and-forth finally removed), speaks volumes.. There are no solid references to it anywhere on the web, so basically all content is user-genrated opinion.--Agoodbadhabit (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hobit. Sufficient sources are available to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2011 (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.