Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citadel of Chaos

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 all, with no objections to individual or group renominations. We have fairly clear guidelines on group nominations - I would advise that people follow them. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Citadel of Chaos[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article and all of the books on the List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks by Puffin apart from those with links. There are over 50. Until recently all of those books had there own article in the mainspace which have only just been set as redirects. A fair amount of content has been removed by an SPA and from an IP that has been used by a sock puppet. I'd prefer these books returned to mainspace but they may not be worthy. I generally think as these books have sold in the tens of millions collectively a wider range of opinions are required to see what should happen to these articles. Szzuk (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what outcome do you want here? A list article? Individual articles for every game book? I'm a bit confused by your statement. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Individual articles already exist for all of these books. For example [[1]] and [[2]]. The options are a) Undo all of the redirects b) keep the redirects c) delete the articles altogether or separately. I'd prefer a) I am uncertain whether this is the right action and won't go ahead without some certainty because it would be a large amount of labour. Szzuk (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is actually unnecessary. I indicated to this user ([3]) that all the Fighting Fantasy books had been redirected to List of Fighting Fantasy game books. I included a full rationale - including a link to the outcome on another discussion on the FF text Midnight Rogue - but it was promptly deleted from their Talk Page. The consensus was that a redirect was sufficient - which I performed. Any relevant information - such as an ISBN - can be included on the master page, but the sticking point is that is has to be noteworthy information. A redirect - which has been done - is less draconian and final. Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one afd should justify the redirect of 50+ pages without more views being expressed on the matter. Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means let's discuss, but it will come back to the fact that the majority of the pages are rife with trivia and opinion, and that there is in fact nothing else to add. All the images are still available through the links I provided on your Talk Page, and the ISBN codes have been moved across. It might be possible to add another box to the master page explaining what role the player takes in each title, but there's really nothing else to add! Thebladesofchaos (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your opinion. But it is the opinion of one person and you have made unavailable a lot of content, as WP is a collaborative project it is best to have more opinions than just a few. Szzuk (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep humm, sounds like there is one RS, White Dwarf. Are there any others? If so, it would pass WP:N. I'm not seeing any in the article at the moment, but I suspect there were other reviews. It's hard to !vote to keep on the basis of "probably" (thus the weak), but I'm fairly certain others would have covered it at the time. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a (very) brief review here. Only slightly more than a passing mention though. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added another ref noting the books are available for the iPhone and iPad in a digitised game form. The series has sold 15 million copies all in, so with a little looking many of the 50 odd books would be notable, the problem would be which ones :) Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ones you can find reliable sources that meet WP:N for. I know that's obvious, but it's also truth. I strongly suspect most, if not all, of these books can meet that bar, but will require a lot of research. Check out the D&D project group--some people there have access to some (now) hard-to-find sources from the right time period. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just added another ref noting the Commodore 64 port. With that many sales there would be bits and pieces in magazines, newspapers etc. all over the place, so I too think most of those books are notable. I'll check the D&D project group, I used to play, was fun! Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added, thanks. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just referenced the next in the series - The Forest of Doom and undone the redirect, as for the other 54, I don't have time. I'm wondering if the link to an oft noted website is a Reliable Source. On first appearances it looks like a fanpage but I can't tell. If it is reliable, it would certainly help. The website is here - [4]
- It certainly looks reliable, but don't look independent. So it's quite usable for sourcing an article, but not useful for meeting WP:N. Or at least that's my read on it. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that White Dwarf probably did reviews on some of these gamebooks, and possibly some of the other gaming magazines as well. I just completed a run-through last year of Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds and sourced as many D&D books as I could, and seem to recall that he may have covered those gamebooks as well. I used the copy at the library, and given the extreme weather I'm a bit reluctant to return to the library this week, but I can at least check and see what I can find in the gaming periodicals. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some confirmation: Citadel of Chaos was reviewed in WD #42 (1983). BOZ (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is great, thanks. I presume I could use that website to reference a lot of the other fighting fantasy gamebooks, I will have a look :) Szzuk (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the end you're going to need more than just "Oh yeah, it was reviewed in such-and-such," you're going to need some commentary from the actual review. I have a lot of these peridocials, so I will try to help you out; get me a list of which ones you need and I'll do what I can do give you at least a few sentences for each article. BOZ (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a list, it includes the Puffin Books from 1-10. My recollection from reading the series is that around #10 ghost and extra writers were brought in, so the number of releases went up but the quality went down. I've included 2 later relases which I know are notable. I guess if any others are notable they will return sooner or later of their own accord. I will begin to look to see what I can find too. Thanks.

2 The Citadel of Chaos Jackson/Livingstone 1983
3 The Forest of Doom Livingstone 1983
4 Starship Traveller Steve Jackson 1983 ISBN 0-14-031637-X
5 City of Thieves Ian Livingstone 1983 ISBN 0-14-031645-0
6 Deathtrap Dungeon
7 Island of the Lizard King Ian Livingstone 1984 ISBN 0-14-031743-0
8 Scorpion Swamp Steve Jackson (USA) 1984 ISBN 0-14-031829-1
9 Caverns of the Snow Witch Ian Livingstone 1984 ISBN 0-14-031830-5
17 Appointment with F.E.A.R. Steve Jackson 1985 ISBN 0-14-031922-0
24 Creature of Havoc Steve Jackson 1986 ISBN 0-14-032040-7

Have dug around and found some WD issues, 42, 49, 53. Szzuk (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get around to it, but I added a few notes to the first couple of books on this list. The full review from WD #42 is about as long as a full column from a page of a publication, so of course there is a lot more that I could say; if you like, I could e-mail you the full text of the review. Will try to do more soon. BOZ (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, had more free time than I thought, so I fixed up four more books. I restored three of those four, and resored the images that went with them. I have a special soft spot for Starship Traveller, as this is the only Fighting Fantasy book I ever owned, and spent many hours playing, replaying, and analyzing it in the 1980s. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's great! My first owned book was citadel of chaos, I was literally blown away by how good it was, I was 11 and it was second only to getting my own TV lol. I liked Deathrap Dungeon best followed by City of Thieves. I played D&D for a couple of years, thinking about it I should find a local club, would be good to catch up with it. If there is useful material left you can send me a scan and I'll add. I think I'll buy one of these books too, thanks :) Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is still whether to redirect or delete. As for passing muster, a hard ask. Something like 90% of both Citadel and Forest are out just on grounds of being opinion and original research. A games link can easily be incorporate into the master list if that is all there is to go on. Also no link to prove Forest sales? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tidied up the article as much as possible, but it really needs some sourced statements from this Warlock magazine. Notability just on the merits of a video game is pretty thin. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. I'm a bit confused about the statements on this page. The discussion seem to cover more articles than the one listed (Citadel of Chaos), and plenty of it revolves around regular article improvement tasks. So I have to ask again - What's the question here? Most urgently, I want to oppose the notion that these articles could and should be replaced by entries in the "master list" (list of FF publications). I am not opposed to the list per se, but an article ought not be removed on basis that everything relevant could be covered in list form. That might be strictly true, but is no good reason anyway: please don't reduce Wikipedia to a series of lists. Much better, then, to discuss the (lack of) references for each article, working to keep most or all of them. (Again, if this wasn't the appropriate place to discuss this issue, feel free to move them elsewhere). Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only reinterate what I have said both here and on your Talk Page. The problem is that almost all the FF titles are simple trivia and not notable. An entry such as House of Hell is notable as it is soon to be a feature film, but something like Midnight Rogue, which is not even being reprinted by Wizard Books, is not. For these titles, it seems to be a case of redirect or delete, which is the overall issue here. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete redirects, so this is a procedural afd for me to ask interested parties such as yourself to help find sources for these articles. The best way to prevent redirects and other unhelpful changes is to source an article with appropriate references demonstrating WP:Notability. Szzuk (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears you've been engaged in an edit war with this user. An Afd prevents the circularity of that kind of discussion. You could have reported them to a sysop and they would have been warned. Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war. A lack of civility ([5]) with some emotional ultimatums, but I think things are on track now that enough evidence has been presented as to why it is a case of "notability or nothing". I'll all for keeping articles where possible, but someone has to present a reason (me included!). Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Group nominations should be clearly identified as such with all entries listed. It's clear from the conversation above that commentors aren't clear on what is being nominated or what they are voting on.. Some Fighting Fantasy gamebooks are unquestionably notable; others are not. As frustrating as it might be to a nominator who wants to deal with a large number of un-maintained articles quickly, these should be nominated individually. (For what it's worth, I vote Keep on the particular case of Citadel of Chaos. It's the second entry in a notable series and it's be reprinted a couple of times; unsurprisingly, there is sufficient coverage of it to establish notability.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm happy that gamebooks #2 to #7 have had their notability established with references thanks to this AFd (although everything is arguable). I should have been clearer with the nominations, however all is well that ends well. Szzuk (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also if we delete all these articles then how will I be able to convince people that my signed copy of Scorpion Swamp is in any way noteworthy? :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've uncovered my master plan, you'd have to sell it to me :) Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a happy ending. Good to see that the "Magnificent Seven" can be kept, although as DustFormsWords correctly indicates, almost all of the others have no notability. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I found more White Dwarf reviews:

36: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain
54: Kharé - Cityport of Traps
66: House of Hell, Talisman of Death
84: Titan

That's all I have for now. I'll try to add these when I can. BOZ (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great :) I bought and am currently reading Creature of Havoc. I've tried twice to find some sources for it but nothing independant has cropped up. The fan forums have it down as Steve Jackson's crowning glory, his last and best FF title, it is nice to catch up! Szzuk (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The discussion above seems to be a train wreck. There are good alternatives to deletion and it is our editing policy to use them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A train wreck? Whoa, you misread that. We came away with a very positive outcome. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all with liberty to relist individual books which don't meet notability requirements. I do have a soft spot for FF books. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 23 February 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.