Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wargames Research Group

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. Nakon 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames Research Group[edit]

Vocational group, article was prodded and deleted but restored on request. The article claims that the group's work was cited in academic work, but the evidence points to a link farm, a syllabus and an online essay, but no published academic articles. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WRG is a standards setter in the field of miniature wargaming. The extent to which their works are cited by academia is irrelevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation in academia is the claim to notability mentioned in the article. It is, like your claim, wholly unreferenced. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're supposed to search yourself before nominating. Please see this list of books. One of them, on the first page of hits, says The 'ancient' period has long been popular with wargamers, due in no small measure to the publications of the Wargames Research Group, whose best-selling.... Now please withdraw your nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I don't see anything that could be considered a substantial portrait of the group in that link. Passing mentions don't meet WP:N. So, no. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- why the hair trigger reaction to delete?? There's no question among the wargaming community about the significance of WRG - if there was only 1 organisation from wargaming on Wiki then this might be it. The requirements for 3rd party reviews etc. are almost impossible to meet because such things generally do not occur in the hobby at all, so it's being worked on.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolute nonsense. Wargames publications are constantly reviewing rule sets as well as figures. If this company had really been all that influential, there would be hundreds of third-party (i.e. not originating with the company, its sister organisations, or its small but self-important fan base) sources that could be included. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- reference to academia removed. AFAIK incorrect references are supposed to be corrected aren't they, rather than the whole article deleted?--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are still no references, even though a couple of the more grandiose claims in the article have been trimmed. Despite what its fans seem to claim, WRG is not really all that notable. Warhammer (sadly) is indisputably important enough to have an article, so if there 'were only one wargaming company' on Wiki it would be Games Workshop (note: WRG is a company, not some not-for-profit organisation). So far, we see lots of claims that WRG is important, but absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone outside a very limited clique considers it of any import whatsoever. More than half the article is simply a list of the company's products. The tone of the article is distinctly biased, in that it makes comments like 'most wargamers refer to the games simply by their version number'. There is no evidence that 'most wargamers' even 'refer to the games' at all. A biased article isn't on its own a reason to delete, but the following points, all working in concert, definitely make this article a deletion candidate:

No references other than the company's home page
Unverified comparisons to competing products: 'in contrast to other rules, these ones do this...'
Most of the article is simply a product listing
What little of it isn't a product listing is basically a chronicle of the company, with advertising copy slipped in between the possibly true, if thoroughly unimportant, facts.
The article is written in ignorance of other, prior wargaming systems, if it insists, as it does, that WRG pioneered the use of historical research in wargaming, which is complete bollocks immediately obvious to anyone who knows the first thing
No matter how prolific these people may be, being prolific alone is not sufficient reason to have an article.
Because this group is so thoroughly unimportant to anyone other than its rather devoted fans, it is unlikely that third party (non-fan-written) references can be found, and that an article could be maintained in a suitably neutral state, without the constant addition of the same old marketing rubbish as we currently see, again and again.
Together, these points make a very strong case for deletion. Mr Maxim (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I would have assumed that a wargames company founded in 1969 would automatically be notable, since few were around at that time, making it almost certainly one of the founders of the genre - yet it appears this one is not. There's only one independent source that provides anything like significant coverage; the rest are basically just trivial mentions in longer lists. If references can be provided that specifically focus on the Wargames Research Group, and demonstrate exactly why they are notable, then it should be kept; but in their absence, it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 05:15, 22 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.