Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Britannica

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 merge to Cubicle 7. Obviously if the AFD nomination for the merge target closes as "delete" then this page/redirect should also be deleted, but in the meantime there is a consensus that Cthulhu Britannica is worth mentioning but not having its own article. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Britannica

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

Cthulhu Britannica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another product page in the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Tightly paraphrased puzzle book is unreferenced except to a single RS. A search of newspapers.com, Google News, and JSTOR fails to find any additional RS coverage. Chetsford (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Tyw7, you have just listed a series of published books to the Deletion lists for Video games and Technology, neither of which applies (Games does apply). Could you remove them? I thought it better to make the request rather than do it myself, so that the removal could be discussed if necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improper nom by clueless editor - The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Newimpartial - I see you're mass copy/pasting a declaration that I'm "clueless" across several recent AfD discussions [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. As you're aware, this is extraordinarily disruptive to the AfD process. I don't mind if you use personal attacks against me, however, they might discourage other editors from joining in the discussion. Thanks for your consideration. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editor warned. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to a delete. My own investigation yielded similar results regarding independent reliable sources, indicating this topic does not meet the bar for WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Izno, there are now five Reliable Sources in the article. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I found one more source, and hopefully more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Cubicle 7. BOZ (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Cubicle 7 (changed !vote) reviewed in two independent, reliable sources with editorial oversight - Black Gate and The Gaming Gang. Meets NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changed !vote explanation) - While I believe I have shown that GNG is met and an individual article is viable, I do recognize that Notability doesn't guarantee a separate article for each topic. In the event of a Merge, I would strongly recommend a section in Cubicle 7, alongside their card games and their non-notable RPG publications, rather than at Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game). Major multi-volume CoC settings, like this one or Delta Green, should not be collapsed into the CoC article, particularly as they can be played with other rulesets such as GUMSHOE (Trail of Cthulhu, Fall of Delta Green, etc.). Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, this is a series of 9 instructional/rules books. The bare minimum of two reviews required of NBOOK apply to a single book. As for GNG, there is not a "two source" policy. GNG requires significant coverage in "multiple" sources. There is no "two and done" criteria. Chetsford (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three distinct, full length reviews from those two sources. I don't know how you don't see the GNG pass for this Origins award-winning line. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if appropriate, Merge to Cubicle 7. No references that establish notabilty have been produced. HighKing++ 12:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Black Gate and TheGamingGang are both independent, reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, do you have to be asked at every AfD to provide links? I'm happy to look at links but I'm not going to chase down what I think might be the link you're looking at and comment on it only to find you were referring to something else. We've already had this dance. HighKing++ 15:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I will tell you why I don't volunteer links at every AfD; it has to do with petitioner/grantor mechanics and with my dislike of whack-a-mole.
Petitioner/grantor dynamics are discussed inter alia in Robin Laws' RPG Hillfolk. In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches a potential grantor with a request, and the grantor decides whether or not to grant the request. At AfD, whenever the nom has applied inappropriate criteria or done a poor BEFORE, their typical move is to insist that those with a better grasp of the sources not only describe what is there (which is required by policy) but then to show links, which the grantor will either recognize as reliable sources or move the goalposts again. Whack-a-mole comes in in responding to grantor's objections, like the whole digression about Designers & Dragons' INDEPENDENT status based on a potential grantor's misunderstanding of the Open Game License.
This is simply not the way AfD is supposed to work: there is not supposed to be a set of self-proclaimed gatekeepers who only do a perfunctory BEFORE check before nominating, who "force" knowledgeable participants to inform them about the reliability of sources and the status of awards, and who "require" the other participants to present links as if they, the grantors, were unable to use basic internet tools or comprehend basic texts. Whack-a-mole is exhausting, and in my view WP does not benefit from a pattern that drains editing energy into defending the existence of, rather than improving, relevant content. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The whole process has exactly the same emotional valence for me as dealing with civil POV pushers, especially in this most recent round of nominations. Providing links to SEALIONS is well known only to encourage them... Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Petitioner/grantor dynamics are discussed inter alia in Robin Laws' RPG Hillfolk. In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches Though an interesting anecdote, the rules of the "Hillfolk" fantasy game are not generally cross-applicable to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia with a dedicated set of guidelines and policy. This is simply not the way AfD is supposed to work ... "require" the other participants to present links Actually, this is exactly the way Wikipedia works (through links or, in the case of offline sources, traceable citations). The existence of sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Per our policy: The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering and straw man argumentation. In no AfD discussion have I ever merely asserted that sources exist; I have always said where they may be found. The provision of links is simply not required in WP policy, and the case of the High King asking for more detail on the Cubicle 7 chapter of Designers & Dragons in the same AfD where I had already given the page numbers for that chapter is highly illustrative of inappropriate behavior by grantors in this situation, equivalent to carping for links for sources already given by name, or your (Chet) demanding the authors and titles for print reviews for which the issue numbers had already been given.
And if you don't see that the relevance of the petitioner/grantor dynamic extends beyond the game in question, then you are just not paying attention. The best games illuminate life. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge OK so we have a few reviews, any chance of seeing them? At this time we have two sources in the article, one of which does not pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are now five reliable sources to the article, including sources for the two reviews, Designers & Dragons, and two reviews. If you don't think the enies count, for some reason, that still leaves four RS. Can we do better than a merge? Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note that WP:WALLEDGARDEN is not a policy, purely an essay. Please provide a policy reason for deletion. Additionally describing RPG books as "a puzzle book" could be interpreted as a bad faith nom. Canterbury Tail talk 18:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I did so characterize it, which has led to me being impaled painfully roasted at ANI just now. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its present form makes a pretty strong case for independent notability. I mean Black Gate is a top tier publication off the bat and then there's the matter of the Origin Award winning status.Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game line has won two of the games industries highest and most notable awards, an Origins award and an Ennie. This alone gives it notability. Canterbury Tail talk 18:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge into Cubicle 7 the line is notable, but nothing more can really be added to the article that is notable so I'd say now that while it should be kept, it doesn't need to be its own article. Merge it into Cubicle 7. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seems like it would be more appropriate to merge with Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) and put it as a paragraph under the licenses section rather than having a standalone article. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I don't believe merging it into the Call of Cthulhu page would be productive, it's already a large article and this line is notable in it's own right. Not all Cthulhu licensees are notable, but due to the awards this one is. Now if we were to have a separate article on Call of Cthulhu licensees then maybe, but the section in the CoC article is already getting large and doesn't even cover all licensees. Canterbury Tail talk 21:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that the current reference used for the Origins Award does not mention Cthulhu Britannica or Shadows over Scotland anywhere --Imminent77 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's my bad choice of reference. It's fixed now; my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, apart from the fact that it has won industry awards and is reliably sourced on its own? Apart from those things, sure, it would be better to merge. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cubicle 7 per WP:PRODUCT. Jbh Talk 16:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see your point with that suggestion. However the Black Gate coverage and the Origin Award speak to independent notability; I am trying to decide whether to keep my keep !vote or change to merge per you so if you could provide more detail on your reasoning it'd be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    KibbitzI know my comment wasn't solicited here, but per NBOOK and the 2018 Origins Award its 2012 Origins Award I believe it would be foolish to merge in this case. The line is more akin to being a game in itself than a product in the sense of WP:PRODUCT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a game product line consisting of many books. Jbh Talk 17:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: The 'meat' of the article is just the awards and everything of significance can be covered in the main article. NORG establishes a preference of including products within their parent's article unless they are both independently notable and their coverage would significantly overload the parent article. The sources provided do not establish independent notability. The reviews are not RS so there is just D&D and the awards. Jbh Talk 17:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jbhunley: I would challenge that Black Gate isn't a WP:RS but I appreciate your point that its main source of notability is just that it won awards and that can be addressed in the parent article without overloading it. Will change my !vote to merge. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Jbhunley. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to anything stated above in a merge comment. Content should be kept, but not in its own article due to nom. Redditaddict69 12:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game), as per Imminent. No notability on its own. Also, the arguments against his proposal aren't convincing. This article is for supplements for use in the Call of Cthulhu only, so that's where the redirect ought to be, not to the company. The reader will have the opportunity to read about the game and the supplements on the same page. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cthulhu_Britannica&oldid=859158490"