Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellbinder Games (USA)

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 delete. - Bobet 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbinder Games (USA)[edit]

Prod contested. My original prod rationale was "Not notable per WP:CORP. As far as I can tell they have never published a children's book or at least none that Amazon ever heard about. So it seems they have published one book. One." User Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) claims that this company and its parent company Apotheosis Publishing published books in the 80's which are now out of print.

  • Comment This claim in unverifiable and doubtful. Moreover this user has a very particular interest in all things related to Randy Richards who is the author of the one book published by this company: Dreadmire. Incidentally, that book is also up for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not everything is verifiable online. There is a real word out there with a lot of information that isn't online at all. As to my "particular interest in all things related to Randy Richards", so do you Pascal.Tesson, Quode and Robbstrd as you can see by their edits. I was only mildly interested in the subject, which is NOT Randy Richards, but the popular book Dreadmire and all things related to IT. My "particular interest" occured when meat puppets called in by sock puppet Quode appeared out of the woodwork and started editing my articles mercilessly, trying to show the author in a bad light, violating all sorts of Wikipedia rules and guidelines in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryogenesis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment My interest in this subject came when I noticed (doing Newpage patrol) that you had created 10 separate articles about types of oozes and advised against it. I would also note that I have edited all over Wikipedia but yes, when I see signs of vanity editing I tend to follow the trails so that the necessary cleanup can be done. Also if this publisher has published children books I would be happy to have a title. We could then look it up in the library of congress and actually verify that it exists. Pascal.Tesson 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument is now in a cycle. Randy has yet to prove one thing and makes spurious claims. He has no idea what Wiki is all about and assumed he could just walk in and make whatever claims he wished. Wiki is edited by people who have invested a large amount of time to ensure the information displayed is correct. Quode 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which is something you should do yourself. Your sole purpose for creating a user name was to nominate the Dreadmire article for deletion. I have asked Randy Richards to come here and defend the book but he seems in agreement with you, that D&D has no place on Wikipedia.--Cryogenesis 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notion that D&D has no place on Wikipedia is absurd. Considering its fanbase and its inspiration to the Computer Gaming industry, as well as two Motion Pictures and a Cartoon Series, it unquestionably a part of our Culture.--RobNoxious 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies to Mr. Richards. He did not say D&D had no place on Wikipedia. According to this link,[1]he said D&D, its co-creators Gary Gygax and Dave Arenson, WotC/TSR, World of Greyhawk, Dragonlance & authors, and Dungeon/Dragons magazines, SHOULD be on Wikipedia - and then added later that Len Lakofka might should be there too.--Cryogenesis 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep They may be low on the scale of notability, but they do have a product, and there is also Spellbinder Games (UK) which might one day get an article, and I'd hate for folks to confuse them. I am however, troubled by the obvious acrimony between the various parties here, and I suggest that the folks involved take a step back and cool off.FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can assure you I have not lost my cool. But I'd like to point out that WP:CORP is pretty clear: having a product does not make your company notable. Pascal.Tesson 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but no, your line below this belies that attitude. It is obvious that there is a bit of personal feeling in this debate, and that's a problem that should set off warning bells in your head. Consider this a chance to be a good person.. Plus WP:CORP is not pretty clear. It actually starts off saying it is only a rough guideline. But that doesn't even address my real concern, which was confusion with the UK Spellbinder. That's reason enough on its own to have some information. (In fact, I'd say that the disambig page at Spellbinder probably needs this information, but I'll leave that to others.FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, that sort of thinking leads to disambig pages which are so large that they are useless. And WP:CORP is clear: while it's not prescriptive it does indicate that corporations who fail to meet the criteria are likely to be deletable. Since this particular corporation is well below any of the criteria then WP:CORP is in fact very relevant. As for what you perceive as my negative attitude towards this company, again, it is nothing personnal but yes, I do tend to get ticked when an article is being supported by essentially one user and his sockpuppets (well, plus you!) and when the arguments for keeping it involve what seem to be desparate lies. I'm surprised to find you completely unphased by the concern that the content of the article is unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you're not exactly making a good case with me by simply citing policy pages. Sorry, but I find it hard to discuss things with people who just throw those out. Anyway, I've never seen a disambig page that's useless due to size, and frankly, I can't even imagine one. Maybe if it were poorly sorted, but that's a slightly different problem. In any case, two entries isn't that much. More if we move it to Spellbinder (currently at 9). And no matter how annoyed you get, the important thing is to be civil. Annoyance tends to lead to the situation becoming aggravated, not resolved. It certainly distresses me, especially given And no, the entire contents of the article are not unverifiable. Dreadmire at least is listed on Amazon.com and various other sellers. So I'm satisfied with that. Anything else is merely questionable. And they aren't any less notable than many of the minor companies listed in the RPG publisher's category(which is where they should be placed IMHO, so I'm going to do that). Whether or not most of those articles should go through an AfD is something worth considering though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Spellbinder at the NG discussion board we get this quote" I am going by memory so don't quote me on this. Keep in mind these were children's fantasy books along the same lines as Harry Potter. I believe there was The Persnackety Dragon, The Dimadon Lantern, and My Magical Maguffin. There was also a coloring book called Fantasmagoria. Sadly all the remaining copies of these long out of print books were lost in the storm." Link http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=145.topic&start=201&stop=220Quode 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ha ha ha. Is that the best evidence they have? "Yes we published books but we don't remember their titles and we lost our copies in Hurricane Katrina so you'll have to trust us on that". This is even more laughable than I first thought. This has got to go if only per WP:V. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your "ha ha ha" shows you are gleeful at the prospect of getting Spellbinder Games deleted. You should take Manticore's advice and pull back from this "jihad," as one user put it. Also, your comment "is that the best evidence they have" indicates you think this is some sort of game or contest. The 20-year old books existed, and no it may not be proveable online, but not everything is online. There are several books from my own childhood that I cannot find online anywhere, including Library of Congress online and WorldCat online. The online record is not complete.--Cryogenesis 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For what its worth I enjoyed the trilogy, The Persnackety Dragon, The Dimadon Lantern, and My Magical Maguffin. I wish I still had my copies so I could verify all this for you but I lost them in (you guessed it!) Katrina. I do remember them at a place called Spellbinder Books in Mississippi. Not sure if SG is one and the same. Don't know anything about the coloring book.--68.11.44.88 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHow convienient. The above user, like User:68.222.23.153, is likely another sockpuppet of Randy Richards/Cryogenesis.--Robbstrd 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amazing how Katrina wiped out the whole Spellbinder Games and Apotheosis Publishing section of the library of congress. That hurricane sure was something. Also note that WorldCat has no trace of either of these books. Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what its worth, Spellbinder Games was at Dragon Con and Gen Con.--Cryogenesis 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They may have been there, but not as dealers/exhibitors: GenCon-[2]; DragonCon-[3]--Robbstrd 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable publishing company.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The company has published only a single work, which itself was judged non-notable by a (lengthy) AFD and its article deleted. Same sock-puppetry mess on that AFD as well. Fairsing 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The article on this company's alter-ego, Apotheosis Printing, has now been deleted. Given that Spellbinder and Apotheosis are one and the same company, this article should also be deleted. Fairsing 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: publishers of non-notable books are not notable --Pak21 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is relevant discussion at Necromancer Games, a publishing company of similar in size and scope to Spellbinder Games. Many of the people voting here "delete" are voting "keep" there, indicating the bias of this group. Spellbinder Games/Apotheosis Publishing has four books published (one recently) and two books coming out with 6 months. Necromancer Games has four books.--Cryogenesis 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus this has no bearing. Beyond this, Necromancer games has 37 books, so your claim is simply inaccurate.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And Necromancer Games have won significant awards. Is there any evidence as to the awards Spellbinder Games has won? --Pak21 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trivial awards do not count, sorry.--Cryogenesis 16:05, 23 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 or dance trophy is to some people. No offense to the people at the EN World website, who I am sure are good people that work very hard, but the ENnies are indeed a trivial award. A Pulitzer is a non-trivial award. A little perspective, please.--Cryogenesis 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're not up on the biz, are ya? People are putting notice of nomination on their product. Maybe if you actually had anything to do with RPGs...mythusmage 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people put dance and bowling awards on their resumes. If its all you've got, hey, its a great thing. Unfortunately, bowling, dance, and ENnie trophies are all trivial, as Wikipedia defines it.--Cryogenesis 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please advise as to where Wikipedia defines trivial and non-trivial awards and trophies. Regardless, 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.--RobNoxious 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Same as a championship in the PBA? Really. A 50 year old contest that has thousands of contestants? You may need to step back a gain some perspective.--Cryogenesis 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So long as related pages are merged so as not to create volumes of material for a publisher with only one book, I personally see no reason the page should be deleted entirely. As I understand it, the WP:CORP is a guideline, not an absolute. Various vanity pages, however should be eliminated/merged.--RobNoxious 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very little in this article is verifiable, other than that Dreadmire exists as a product on Amazon. It is almost entirely the claims of the subject of the article, as relayed through the website and forum posts.--Rosicrucian 03:58, 29 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/Spellbinder_Games_(USA)&oldid=1069827969"