Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushido (role-playing game)

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido (role-playing game)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPG notability. No reliable RS available. czar · · 08:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Game predates internet by 20 years. All reviews from when it was released would be hard copy. Dragon Magazine, issue 34, page 46 has one. Dragon Magazine issue 134, page 75 has another. [1] - I have the hard copy magazines in storage, but I would not be able to access them in a timely manner. I am pretty sure White Dwarf had some reviews on it as well. My collection of those is not as complete. There are current reviews on line (people STILL playing the game after 30 years), but I am not sure what [WP:RS] thinks of those sites. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming those three reviews exist and have extended detail on the topic, is that enough to pass GNG? As the article stands, it's substantiated by a whole lot of OR. I'm seeing a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue here. X-posting from Aftermath's AfD, wouldn't it make more sense to include this topic within its parent? czar · · 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Given the reviews I supplied above, article meets all the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. If you want to discuss that the article is a mess, I have no problem with that - it is, but cleanup is not a reason for AfD. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't about cleanup, but notability. I disagree that two print reviews (of which we know little about review quality) is enough to establish notability. We'll have to leave it at that. czar · · 21:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "we" know little about review quality? It was the foremost RPG magazine for 30 years, and a complete collection was released on CD some 15 years back, so source access is not really a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the first, if not the first, RPG to deal with Oriental settings. Intothat darkness 18:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well-known RPG. Nominator appears to be one of the many who does not really understand what WP:OR actually means and does not appreciate that sources do not have to be online to be acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have added two independent references and will be adding more. Also the nominator tagged these articles with Improve tags and then proceeded right to AFD without any time for anyone to respond to the first tagging. This is a gross violation of community standards and goodwill. The article should be kept on that alone and then time given to allow for an improve. I will however improve this article all the same. Web Warlock (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added three. Web Warlock (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Also I don't know the norms of which you speak. Link? Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. czar · · 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEL you made no attempt to edit the article, no attempt to discuss changes. Your first edit to this article was to PROD it. This is a violation of the community norms and standards. Web Warlock (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another highly notable game in the history of RPGs/table top gaming. Note for nominator -- Tagging for "improve" is the way to handle things if the article doesn't adequately show notability and you're not familiar enough with the field to say one way or the other. --Lquilter (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note, but WP:ASSUMECLUE. Re: tags—I doubt that this article would have received any attention if it weren't x-posted to WT:RPG per this AfD (WP:NWZ). I ask if you really think the current refs pass RS standards—if they adequately do Bushido's "high notability" justice, or where those refs are otherwise. That's why I brought it to AfD. czar · · 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ASSUMECLUE is an essay, not a relevant essay and a stupid one, as I've explained on the talk page. Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is a policy, says "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is a reason for deletion, not "articles that don't currently have reliable sources". WP:RUBBISH says "the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." and "AFD is not cleanup".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really, if you don't have access to the works about the subject to check for references, nominating it for deletion is a little unreasonable. A number of reliable sources has been found.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note now 8 independent sources that cover this topic and establish it's notability as the First Japanese themed RPG. Web Warlock (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2012 (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.