Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric and the Dread Gazebo (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and the Dread Gazebo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've added two refs, but I am afraid this fails WP:GNG. It's a niche meme / anecdote that did not get any WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is a PhD thesis that discusses this for about two pages or so; another academic book mentions this in passing and calls it "legendary". There are also WP:OR concerns, such as our article's stress that this was popularized by one "Richard Aronson", sourced to his old post where he focuses on his copyrights for this story - I failed to find any independent source which credits him with "popularizing" this. That said, we are effectively retelling this entire (very short) story, which does raise some copyvio concerns. And then there is the "in popular culture" section which forms half of our article and is pure OR (unreferenced). Sigh. I do find this meme (or anecdote) funny and I've heard it before today, but I am afraid it is not notable. I struggle to suggest where to merge and redirect it. The only page that links to this trivia is Gazebo, where maybe this could be summarized in a few sentences? PS. Last AfD few years ago had a lenghty list of sources about a play called Hannah and the Dread Gazebo, which may be notable, but I am not seeing any evidence that that play was inspired by this anecdote (this review suggests there may be a connection, but is vague). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [1] is reliable, yes (Seems to have a real staff etc.)? There are also books that cover this. I've just requested one from my local library ("The role-playing society: essays on the cultural influence of RPGs") which apparently has some coverage. @Piotrus: could you point me to the Thesis, is it [2]?? Note: I was notified of this AfD indirectly by another editor. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit: The PhD thesis is Anything can be attempted: Tabletop role-playing games as learning and pedagogy by Timothy Woods. /Julle (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://knowyourmeme.com/ is not reliable. Tagged in red by User:Headbomb/unreliable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could someone explain the copyright concerns to me? Storylines aren't covered, only unique expressions of said story – retellings of stories are allowed under US copyright law. But we're still talking about a work in detail rather than creating a new work of art with the same characters (Eric, the gazebo), so I don't understand how the characters could be the issue any more here than in any other description. /Julle (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle Copyvio is not a strong converns of mine here. The issue is that we paraphrase this very short story in about as many words as the original. But given how short it is, it may be fine due to fair use or such. The bigger issue is that this story is not very well covered by other sources (notability). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my humble opinion, none of this discussion or the original deletion discussion has really demonstrated what makes the story notable. That an anecdote is told and retold across sources does not amount to notability if there is not any cited coverage about the context, reception or influence of that story. Of the three sources, Aaronson is a primary source and purported origin of the story, Byers briefly retells the story without analysis (calling it "legendary" is not really reception) as a point of trivia about a reference in Munchkin, and the Woods source is a thesis, which is fair for inclusion but not particularly strong evidence for notability as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which retells the story to open a discussion about the "inner workings" of play experiences and play-based learning, which to be fair is valid and good commentary. If this is the WP:THREE sources we're leaning on for notability, it's not a good start, and I hope more reliable sources with sustained commentary on the story can be found, perhaps averting to a WP:NEXIST situation. On the point about the play, the previous deletion discussion suggested it may very well be notable. But that's because it had sources discussing it. As with WP:TRIVIA I would really caution the idea that something is notable because a bunch of loosely connected creative works have referenced or hinted at it in the past, because that in itself does not reliably evidence anything of substance about the nature of the thing itself, although does provide some evidence of legacy. On the copyright issue, yes, if it's genuinely copyrighted, quoting or reproducing the story would be a WP:COPYVIO, but paraphrasing would not be - that's fair use. Happy to re-evaluate this one if more sources are found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Don't think this is particularly strong, but the below text found reinforces a general pattern of retelling and commentary on the story, enough to substantiate notability, paired with the likely WP:NEXIST situation it is enough. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found one more source, Dangerous Games, p. 11-12, which discusses the topic under the term "the gazebo story" and goes in the same direction as Wood's PhD thesis ("The gazebo anecdote is significant because...".) So while those sources do not provide a very large amount of commentary, I would say it is enough to just so establish notability. Daranios (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep we now have multiple, reliable, independent sources and so our inclusion guideline is met. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have enough indications that this is a story which has been spread throughout various places, a cultural phenomenon which is helpful if we can explain, and enough sources to be able to keep it. /Julle (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several independent reliable sources. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no objection to merging this into some sort of a bigger article on role playing game memes and culture. That is, this clears the bar per the above... but really, is it better served as part of a larger narrative. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (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.