Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WEB (Top Secret)

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. None of the Keep opinions provided relevant reliable sources in order to verify the notability of the article subject. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEB (Top Secret)

Non-notable in-game organisation. No assertion of real-world notability, and no links to independent coverage.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are comics, trade paperbacks and novels in addition to the many resources published in the Top Secret/S.I. line that contain both ORION Foundation and WEB organizations and characters. Why target these for deletion when so many other examples similar are allowed (look at the Mystara article, it contains half a dozen articles about countries from that campaign setting. What's the difference with these articles)? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the previous user, the only reason available for deletion is that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia but that same reason can be aimed at any number of roleplaying entries on Wikipedia. Should these articles be deleted then I would expect all other roleplaying entries to have the same level of administrative input applied to them (i.e., deletion).

dpmcalister (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too agree with the above users. Further, things like tv episodes, fantasy/science fiction concepts, etc. also fit the same criteria. Wiki is supposed to be about information that different people want to see. CMartin007 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — CMartin007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. RPGs hold just as much importance as any other form of entertainment. When are novel related pages going to be pulled? TSSI spawned novels. --Hodagacz (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Hodagacz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment none of the above keep votes, including those from the two editors who have contributed elsewhere, address the concerns I put forward. Although the ORION foundation and WEB organisations appear in multiple places in the TSSI line, there is no non-trivial independent coverage; and as such the topics do not meet the notability guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My point is that if the precedent is set by deleting these articles, then all the role playing articles on Wikipedia will also need to be reviewed, with the vast majority being deleted due to an inability to obtain non-trivial independent coverage for games that are no longer published — and haven't been for over 15 years. dpmcalister (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment Whether or not other articles exist that don't meet the criteria doesn't affect whether these two do. Do you have any sources to show that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of these topics? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment There are a mailing lists and websites dedicated to Top Secret/S.I. and, by default, ORION and WEB. I would consider them to be non-trivial (one has been in existence for nearly 10 years) and independent. dpmcalister (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I feel you should retract the nomination for deletion. According to the guidelines from the very article you sited, the proper procedure are found here - Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. Being a large contributor to the articles I would've thought you'd have contacted me about these issues, first. I don't believe you asked me about anything related to the articles. Perhaps you meant to put the {{notability}} instead of the deletion tag, but it seems from your discussion here you intended to skip right to the deletion nomination. Lastly, {{expert-subject}} would've sufficed and probably would have been more appropriate. May I ask why the zeal to delete the articles?
- Comment Since I was content that sources could not be found to establish the article's notability, it was appropriate under those guidelines to proceed to AFD. If you can prove me wrong by finding sources to establish that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of either topic, I'll withdraw the nomination. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again, the {{expert-subject}} needs to proceed the deletion nomination. Why are you so zealous to delete these articles? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment' No, it doesn't. {{expert-subject}} is for artickes " in need of attention from an expert on the subject." This article is in need of sources to establish notability, and none exist. Hence it is appropriate to proceed to AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added one reference, and I strongly suspect there are others, I will leave it to those who know the area. This really should have been tagged for notability first to provide a chance for people to fix. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment may I ask which one? The only independent reference I see in either article is the trivial directory-listing at nationmaster for ORION; so there are still no reliable sources to show notability for either article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom should be withdrawn as it didn't follow guidelines for this type of thing . The idea here is to have verifiable, notable, topics. This one may or may not be. But in good faith should work with others to find out, or at least give them time. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as these articles have no primary references to verify their sources, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of Top Secret (role-playing game). These articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT, and their heavy in universe perspective means it fails WP:WAF, and has little in the way of real-world content, context or analysis. The nomination is very clearly justified; there are no sober agruments for keeping this fancruft. This topic appears to be little more than fodder for a stock conspiracy theory.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect both to Top Secret (role-playing game) (although I'm not sure about the reasoning for the "fodder for a stock conspiracy theory" argument above). Merge (a small amount of relevant material, possibly) to Top Secret (role-playing game), but I think there isn't much to add there that will add much to the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:54, 6 January 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.