Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True20

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 --JForget 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True 20[edit]

Non-notable and the True 20 website, the source for the article, is gone. No sources outside of True 20 owned materials makes me question how notable this was to begin with. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the site is down for server maintance as detailed on Green Ronins' site[1], http://greenronin.com/. There are 3rd party resources. Web Warlock (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still would like to see some actual establishment of notability here, though; its ONLY sources are Green Ronin, its producer, and nothing else. That is questionable in and of itself; if it had some real sources, I wouldn't have put it up for an AFD, but there is nothing to establish the notability of the subject. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. This what I could do in 20 minutes. I have not even opened up a magazine yet. Web Warlock (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And really. Should you have not put on a refimprove tag on first? Going right to AFD seems a bit drastic. You didn't even discuss it on the talk page first. Your resons to delete are not very good. Web Warlock (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 10 references have been added and True20.com is back online as was promised on Green Ronin's own website. Reasons for the AfD are now null. Web Warlock (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Request to have this AFD removed - for all the reasons I state above, plus I believe this nomination is in bad faith. Web Warlock (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Going right to AfD? The article has been here for several years. If the article was created today or within the last month or so, then your contention that there wasn't enough time allowed would hold more merit. DarkAudit (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still comon courtesy should have been observed. Web Warlock (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2 - a year and nine months is not several years. Web Warlock (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The combined history is going on two years. It's not a new article. What's your point? DarkAudit (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - WW's almost arguing against his own position there. ;) And being around for X years hasn't stopped an article from getting deleted before... still, it's no fun to see it happen to an article one likes... BOZ (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of AFD - Shelve this at least for the moment, or suspend it till the main website is back up. There is 3rd party published material for True20 beyond what Green Ronin themselves have produced, which in and of itself should make this AfD invalid. Tag it as needing references and let them be made, then if they aren't found within a reasonable time with some additional prompts if needed, then bring an AfD back. I won't call it bad faith without evidence to state it as such, but it's premature. Beyond that, with enough looking, I'm certain that reviews of the system and products for the system by staff reviewers in a few spots could be found to give additional sourcing, and establish notability.Shemeska (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - will agree that one of the primary reasons for the deletion is invalid as the website is not only not gone, but was only down briefly and is now functioning for me. [2] Was designed as a simpler version of the d20 system, and has been applied to a number of settings and worlds. Wish I had a stronger reason than that, but I'm not as familiar with the system as I wish I were. Maybe someone else can explain it better. BOZ (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on Web Warlock's excellent sourcing (once again). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WEB.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established (award-winning) and now well-referenced. AfD not invalid, but would have been better to tag first, really. SamBC(talk) 10:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a well-sourced article about an award winning game. Edward321 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (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.