Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mountain Witch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of role-playing games. Weighing arguments against policy leaves us with just the 1 thin rs. That's not enough for a standalone. By rights that leads to deletion based on the discussion but its within broader community norms and my discretion as closer to set this as a smerge. Closing as redirect to article but leaving history for the selective merge Spartaz Humbug! 17:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain Witch

[edit]

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

The Mountain Witch (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)

For preceding 12 years this article on a commercial product has had only one source: a non-RS link to a message board. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find any additional sources. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This Role-playing Game was multiply reviewed, satisfying NBOOK, and is also cited repeatedly for its influence in the field in Designers & Dragons, Volume 4. (Per policy, Books should not be discussed according to NPRODUCT). Inappropriate nomination; AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS per our standard requirement that sources must be demonstrated, not just asserted? Also, I am unable to find an entry for this in "Designers & Dragons, Volume 4" - can you please provide a page number for verification? Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page refences are 183, 252, 290 and 293. Next time, perhaps, consult the index. ;) Newimpartial (talk)
Thanks, I'm not seeing it but - in any case - can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS? Or was it just that one? Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many reviews that are just as readily "seen" as the index of Designers & Dragons (Volume 4), I would commend one from flames rising, a publication professionally edited by Chetsford's nemesis, Monica Valentinelli. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a blog counts as a review for GNG. Also, the review is signed "Clyde"; pseudononymous reviews are not generally considered RS as professional publications typically use an author's surname. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flames rising is/was an editorially vetted publication; the term "blog" is usually used on-wiki for self-published sources, not ones professionally edited by your nemesis. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree a blog post signed by "Clyde" (no last name) is RS, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and let the other !voters decide if a post by "Clyde" is sufficient to meet GNG. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetford, the term "post" is correctly applied to self-published sources and forum contributions. This review is neither. But by all means, let us agree to disagree - your record pretty much speaks for itself. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial in spirit and especially if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "keep" but is now relisted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (summarizing from my DRV comments) I'm not convinced Flames Rising is a WP:RS. The about page describes it as a fanzine. That doesn't (ahem) conjure up visions of strict editorial oversight. The submissions guidelines says, we encourage you to submit your content to our site in order to gain exposure and publicity for whatever it is you’re working on. typically, we only edit reviews for basic spelling and grammar and do not alter your written content.They also allow the review author to retain copyright, and don't pay for reviews. These are not the sorts of things which scream out WP:RS. They do provide some editorial oversight; they describe the types of content they want to publish, and reserve the right to reject items that don't fit their needs. So, not a totally anything-goes, hands-off WP:UGC blog. But, on the spectrum of reliable-sourcitude, more on the bloggy end of the spectrum and not something to base a WP:GNG claim on. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: a merge to some appropriate target would be fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, in addition to Designers & Dragons Volume 4 (multiple page references provided above), the RS concerning this game include an extended discussion in a scholarly article here and a discussion in the dead tree book Dragons in the Stacks (Torres-Roman and Snow, 2014). The notability of the game by no means rests on the status of Flames Rising' as a reliable source; the game has been widely noted as an influential pioneer in the Indie RPG movement of the 00s. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will grudgingly admit that International Journal of Role-Playing is a WP:RS in that it's a peer-reviewed academic journal. But, it's about as marginal as they come, with a total of seven issues published in ten years. We also have very different ideas of what an extended discussion means. The article is about the differences between tabletop, live-action, and digital role-playing games, and only uses The Mountain Witch as an example of one of the categories. It's discussed for one paragraph (plus one other mention) in a 14 page paper. And most of what's said about it is generic to most gamemaster-moderated RPGs. I don't have a copy of Designers & Dragons, Volume 4, nor can I find one on line. It would be useful if you could provide appropriate experts from the coverage so we can better evaluate it's quality as a source. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "International Journal of Role Playing" does not appear to be indexed by any indexation service and its editorial board includes people without terminal degrees. Also, the mention is a single paragraph, not an "extended discussion". But, even if we were to grant this questionable source, we are left with that and Designers & Dungeons which, itself, the community has been unable to arrive at a consensus to its reliability [1]. Two mentions in marginal sources aren't generally indicative of something being "widely noted". Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, RoySmith, but what I meant by "an extended discussion" was, essentially, a non-trivial mention. The criterion set out in the GNG is
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
Trivial mentions, such as name-dropping, are excluded, but other mentions count towards GNG coverage. I would also submit that the author of the article is not referring to The Mountain Witch arbitrarily or at random - the example was selected to show where simplistic depictions of GM-Player structures do not apply. The author therefore had a limited selection of tabletop games to choose from, and selecting The Mountain Witch has to be seen as attributing some significance to it as a case (as indeed is true of the other RS I've presented, as well).
As far as Designers & Dragons, Vol. 4 is concerned, The Mountain Witch is cited as a significant influence on the work of both Vincent Baker (p. 183) and Jason Morningstar (p. 290); that a work is cited by peers and/or successors in the field should contribute in an important way to Notability, and we have a reliable source saying this. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In his analysis of Designers & Dragons, a book published by the Mongoose company which appears to manufacture card games and action figures [2] (and so may or may not be a reputable publisher of literature but isn't exactly Oxford University Press or Taylor & Francis), DHBoggs concluded it had "sloppy scholarship and [a] lack of decent references". I'm inclined to agree with his perspective from my own assessment. Also, from nothing more than a quick glance at the BLPs for Vincent Baker and Jason Morningstar, they appear to be candidates for deletion themselves, though I haven't looked into them carefully yet. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: It would be very helpful if you could provide actual quotes from Designers & Dragons, so people can do their own evaluation. On that note, I found a copy of Dragons in the Stacks on-line. The only mention is in the 2nd paragraph on page 188. I don't consider that to be significant coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, it may have slipped your mind, but the actual closure of your RFC was not your colour-coded table, but rather, that Designers & Dragons is generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements. That policy-based closure is not accurately reflected in your claim that the community has been unable to arrive at a consensus to its reliability; perhaps you were mis-remembering the actual consensus when you referred to Designers & Dragons as a "marginal source"? Also, you are raising questions of WP:SCHOLARSHIP which, as has been pointed out to you previously, do not apply to whether or not a source contributes to Notability. And why are you raising a review of a prior edition of Designers & Dragons - itself not a reliable source - written on a blog by a Wikipedia editor? And if you do find his view significant, why do you not cite his overall comment to your RFC, in which he says In my opinion the work is not wholly reliable, though certain sections dealing with later game development may be. You seem to be treating the available evidence rather selectively, for some reason. BATTLEGROUND much? Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it may have slipped your mind, but the actual closure of" The actual closure did not address the question of the use of Designers & Dragons for establishing notability. There was no consensus on that point, which is why I linked to the section I did. The closure only established it could be used for rudimentary facts and not used for BLPs (in the same vein, we often allow business journals to be used for basic facts but not to establish notability on profitmaking companies). "Also, you are raising questions of WP:SCHOLARSHIP which, as has been pointed out to you previously, do not apply to whether or not a source contributes to Notability." No, I'm raising questions of reliability. If by "pointed out to you previously" you mean you've pointed them out previously, I appreciate I'll have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes RS for role-play games, as always. Chetsford (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, the first reference in the Jason Morningstar section concerns his influences at the Forge community: "Lumpley Games’ Dogs in the Vineyard (2005) continued Morningstar’s indoctrination; many more pivotal games followed — among them The Mountain Witch (2005), Primetime Adventures (2004), and The Shadow of Yesterday (2004)." The Vincent Baker section concerns his highly influential Apocalypse World design: "Baker also notes many inspirational sources; he says that character moves were based on the secrets in Clinton Nixon’s The Shadow of Yesterday (2004), while other mechanics or design were inspired by The Mountain Witch (2005), Over the Edge (1992), Primetime Adventures, Sex and Sorcery (2003) ..." To me, this shows wide recognition by peers or successors, which is one aspect we are supposed to be considering as part of Notability. Kenneth Hite is another important figure who has discussed the importance of The Mountain Witch at some length, though the main instance of this that I could easily find was in audio format, which is not easily cited. Similarly, it would be fairly tedious to go through all of the forwards of games published in the last 13 years that acknowledge the influence of The Mountain Witch, though there would be a significant number.
Also note that Chetsford's efforts to date to take down WP articles on games that met with a similar reception to The Mountain Witch have not been particularly successful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Chetsford, there is no basis in policy for distinguishing between the reliability of an independently-published source and its contribution to Notability, as you should know by now. (As I understand it, the reason business journals may notcontribute to WP:N is that they are not considered fully independent, and with good reason.)
In sum, you do not "disagree with [my] interpretation of what constitutes RS for Role-playing games", you disagree with consensus, and on more than one occasion. You might as well be out about it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Also note that Chetsford's efforts to date to take down WP articles on games that met with a similar reception to The Mountain Witch have not been particularly successful" Hmmmm ... I'm not sure that's a very accurate statement. But, in any case, could you help us understand the policy basis for !voting Keep due to "Chetsford's ... efforts to take down WP articles on games"? I'm not familiar with that policy. I tried checking WP:CHETSFORD but didn't see anything. Chetsford (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy-based argument for !voting Keep, it's an evidence-based argument for taking your unsourced claims as unproven, and for grounded skepticism about your choice of terms (q.v this gem, doubled down at ANI, no less). Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"That's not a policy-based argument for !voting Keep, it's an ..." Noted. To keep this discussion topical and concise, please limit commentary to the question of the AfD, not denouncements of individual participants or descriptions of grievances from unrelated discussions. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is truly how you feel, then you might want to strike through this contribution, which does not notably advance the discussion taking place here. But I thought you were woke. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources against our WP:V standards is a usual element in AfD discussions (see WP:DISCUSSAFD); using the discussion to air a general list of grievances against other editors is not. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "airing a general list of grievances", I am placing your current selective quotations and tendentious statements in context, for those who may not be aware of the background. This contribution is a misleading excerpt from one of the contributions to the RSN discussion you started, and you presented your selection quite out of context. Placing the misleading "evidence" another editor presents into full context is an important part of AFD, unless of course editors can refrain from making selective and misleading arguments. Newimpartial (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Chetsford (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be one of the worst !votes I have ever seen at AfD, and I've seen some bad !votes. I have posted at least three additional RS references to this discussion in addition to those in the current version of the article. Remember, people, it's the potential sourcing that matters at AfD, not the actual article sourcing. Per policy, a non-BLP should pass AfD with no sources in the article if sufficient RS have been identified in the AfD discussion, and here we have four...nothing personal, but whoah. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be one of the worst !votes I have ever seen at AfD, and I've seen some bad !votes. You've been asked numerous times by numerous editors not to use AfD to belittle others. I would like to politely ask you again. Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chstsford, I was making a policy-based comment about the !vote, not about the contributor. There isn't anything belittling about calling a !vote out that isn't compliant to policy. Please keep your comments on my behaviour (even misleading ones, as in this case) to our respective Talk pages, and save AfD for relevant interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 25 November 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/The_Mountain_Witch&oldid=871056101"