Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGL System

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. Wizardman 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OGL System[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mongoose Publishing, this doesn't have enough to stand on its own and the parent article needs expansion anyways. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the publisher is notable does not mean everything they publish is notable. The number of AfDs the nom has made recently is irrelevant to this discussion. The burden of evidence is on those who think the topic is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is upon a nominator to provide deletion grounds that at least have some measure of backing. I can't go around AfDing every article I don't like with a curt "non-notable" without explaining why I think they are, and then demand that others jump through hoops I won't even contemplate approaching. RGTraynor 07:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he thought it was non-notable because it is not established by any sources (Blowdart, if I'm wrong please correct me). Are you aware of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? --Explodicle (T/C) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to (and don't) assume the rationale behind any AfD. If a nom proffers no deletion grounds, or no explanation to support, then it's no more worthy of notice than a Keep vote without any explanation as to why. Beyond that, at looking at the tidal waves of sources on a couple of these AfDs, there is no evidence that nom did the slightest bit of research on his own on any of these. RGTraynor 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that invalidate the question I just asked you? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sooooo, got any of those sources yet? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bothered to look at the article lately? RGTraynor 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the sources you've added since my last comment. RPGnet reviews are self-published so they are not considered reliable sources. The ENWorld review is giving me a 404 error; do you have any cached copies? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnet is owned by Skotos Tech Inc. and has editorial oversight on its reviews, i.e. they aren't just published immediately but are reviewed themselves before they become publicly available. As stated in their FAQ the reviews they want should "Be neither a puff piece nor an attack piece" and should "Include both description & analysis". Because of this editorial oversight, I argue that the reviews don't qualify as self-published sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I felt comfortable with posting it in the first place; RPGnet also historically has dedicated reviewers and columnists. RGTraynor 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for pointing that out. I'm changing to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mongoose Publishing until better sourcing is added. Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 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.