Counting delete votes is never enough to delete an article. I'm curious where you get the idea that there were "just two", though. —Cryptic21:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid judgment call by the closer, and because another call would really be reason to request Deletion Review. There are two Delete !votes and one Weak Delete !vote, plus the nomination is at least 3.5 and maybe 4, and one valid Keep !vote. A Relist would have been a valid judgment call, and Delete was a valid judgment call. No Consensus would ignored a rough consensus. Right call. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was well within the discretion typically given to sysops closing deletion discussions, and there's no other way it could have possibly closed. Listing it again is pretty much guaranteed to have it close the same way. DRV isn't AfD: Round Two, and unless you have something that wasn't covered in the AfD (like reliable sources directly covering the subject, which would be helpful to immediately list, or basically anything that isn't a rehash of the AfD) there's no way this will end in anything other than an endorse. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not the best participation for an AfD I've ever seen, but a delete result certainly is within reason given the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyerT·C04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as within admin discretion per WP:NOQUORUM — specifically If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include [...] closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal; IMO a relist would be unlikely to be closed with a different result because of NOTINHERITED. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I count that as four people supporting deletion, not two. The participation is over the threshold at which the discussion can be closed. Only one supported keeping it and their main argument was the existence of addons, which is irrelevant. Hut 8.506:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Dream Pod 9 – Relisted as WP:BADNAC. Thank you SportingFlyer for pointing out that this was a non-admin close. This clearly didn't fall into the realm of NAC, so I've backed out the close and relisted the AfD, per WP:NACD. Let it run for another week and then some admin can re-close it. As for it being closed 50 minutes early, that by itself is a de minimus violation. -- RoySmith(talk)22:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closing is a difficult task and I think the closer did an admirable job when faced with a tough call. However, I feel this AfD would benefit from being reopened as an informed consensus has not been reached. I say "an informed consensus has not been reached" because "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." (WP:NotEarly) which was not achieved, as I describe next.
A close reading of the Keep !votes finds that half (3 of 6) were simply pro forma "Keep per above"; further, in each case — a review of editor AfD records will show — these are rubber stamp !votes applied by said editors to all AfDs involving fantasy roleplay games, typically highly outside of consensus. A fourth !vote declared "Keep ... [because] I have heard of them..." which is not a policy-based argument. (Two Keep !votes did offer rationale, though, one - rebutted by all three Delete !voters - advanced an unusual argument that declared Wikipedia:Notability (people) also applied to profitmaking companies because corporations were simply groups of people. While the argument that "corporations are people" may be case law, it's not a WP guideline.)
As it stands, this article on a corporation has five sources which amount to a light WP:REFBOMBING run: one doesn't mention the company at all, one mentions it in a single sentence, one is unambiguously non-RS, and one is a product review on one of the company's products that already has its own standalone article. The WP:BEFORE in the AfD revealed nothing more than a handful of other incidental mentions. Wildly better sourced (and sourceable) company articles are rightly rejected daily at AfC. We would never allow a corporate article on a vacuum cleaner company to pass with this paucity of sourcing, and should not apply relaxed standards to fantasy game manufacturers. (As an AfC reviewer, I'm constantly questioned by paid editors asking why Wikivertisements of this type meet WP:N but I'm rejecting their crypto startup; to which I must simply shrug and say WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST.)
Chetsford, you don't have to like the carveout in NORG for groups of creatives, inventors - small groups whose creation of intellectual properties would clearly fall under NBIO if done by one person - also fall under NBIO with individual creators, but the carve-out is there. I quoted NORG in the deletion discussion, which you ignored rather than "refuting" it. Your work in this area would be more productive if you focused on changing the guidelines you object to, rather than hectoring their application.
Also, between the chapter in Designers & Dragons and the 1990s print sources there is undoubtedly enough coverage to pass GNG even without the application of CREATIVE. On the other hand, your attempt to apply AfC standards to AfD shows either insufficient alphabetical astuteness or a willing disregard for the differing policies applying in different venues. The question is whether the subject passes notability criteria, and it undoubtedly does, regardless of the present state of the article (which is simply not a policy-relevant consideration at AfD). Newimpartial (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, especially as more sources were added after the two delete responses, and all responses after that point were keeps. Per Newimpartial's argument, I believe there is enough to meet the WP:GNG here. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As closer of this AfD, I would like to think I was correct, as half of the keep votes still provided reasonable explanation as to why this article should not be deleted. I was convinced against the delete votes and nomination itself. User:BOZ, an admin, seems to agree with me here per his arguments above. ––Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs)05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't disparage your effort here (or in AfD, generally). I think you do excellent work and this was a very tough call. Making closes is difficult because eventually someone always complains (this time it happens to be me). To the reason you stated, however ... while BOZ is an excellent admin, I think one should be careful of presuming an AfD should be correctly kept based on the way s/he !voted as they have a unique view that is outside consensus 83.3% of the time [1]. This, in itself, is fine as outliers are important for progress but can get dicey (no pun intended) if a closer sees BOZ's !vote in a fantasy game AfD and interprets it as an elevated !vote. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sparking of involved editors, Chetsford, you yourself bring "unique views" to the world of RPG AfDs (as the four nominations you have brought since launching this Deletion Review would seem to indicate). Are you hoping to re-litigate your own behavioural issues again? Your noms are starting to look POINTey. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: your seemingly deliberate (otherwise incompetent) use of false or misleading categories for AfD noms? Equally POINTey, and not at all compliant with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out in the past Chetsford, you seem hung up on this idea of a "success rate" having an actual merit; it does not. If a person with a 99.9% "success" rate comes to a discussion they are not automatically correct, nor is the person with a 0.01 "success" rate automatically incorrect. Other respondents and discussion closers will weigh each person's comments using their own interpretations, and likely don't care how "accurate" that person has been on other discussions. While you have often touted your own "success" rate as being some kind of important metric, and pointed out mine as being a sign that my input should be given less weight, I have seen you "fail" often enough at AFD to know that most other people could care less about these figures. Based on previous discussions, you may be proud of your "success" rate and it seems to me you are likely disappointed that your "success" rate is lower on game articles, so my observation is that you are looking to get more deletes to raise your "success" rate, and I don't think you're going to get one here. It took a lot of work for you to get User:Chetsford/GameAFD up to as high of a "success" rate as you did, don't ruin it by barking up the wrong trees - keep aiming for the lower hanging fruit! BOZ (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to make this personal. The closer seemed to indicate that a justification for the close was your status as an admin and I simply said that was not a good justification as you have a unique view that tends to be outside consensus, which is true (noting, at the same time, that having outlier views was fine and, in fact, often helpful); this is a perfectly valid observation when presented with such an argument for close. Second, AfD is not about "success", I'm concerned that you'd choose that word to describe it. It's about improving the encyclopedia. Thanks, again, for your contributions, as well as the passion and knowledge you bring to this subject. Chetsford (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Record keeping for continuous self-improvement, the same reason we have this [2] or this [3] or any editor history analysis. I review AfDs, articles I've created, and past RfCs to identify ways to improve my contributions and the AfD history tool doesn't allow a topical breakdown so I manually track it on some subjects on which I'm active. If you have further questions about me, feel free to ask on my Talk page, though, as this is a Deletion Review. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, you were counseling another user against taking my input seriously because I have "a unique view that is outside consensus 83.3% of the time", so I felt that your emphasis on the importance of statistics needed to be addressed. If you want to call that being personal, I was not the first person to bring that up in this discussion. My view is that your statistics are irrelevant to most people, although I suppose if you think they are important, you can start every AFD by stating how high your statistics are, and then point out the statistics of everyone who replies, so that we can weigh them appropriately. Or, otherwise, do not mention them at all. BOZ (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I counseled the closer against weighing your input with more gravity than other editors, not against taking your input seriously at all. If you read it in the latter way, I apologize. Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen positive contributions and efforts on AfD from User:Chetsford on multiple occasions in the last several months... I would speak against many of the accusations that may imply otherwise. At AfD, there is a learning curve which may take a lot of time to adjust to. I used to have trouble here myself, but I've since corrected it, even though it took close to a year for me. Maybe Chetsford didn't know of these policies before, but now that they'v ebeen made clear, hopefully these similar issues won't occur again from this user. I wouldn't be upset if this discussion were to be reopened/relisted for another week, and maybe I did see User:BOZ's comments as slightly worth more than others, and for that I apologize. But I still believe, after reviewing the discussion, that the keep close was just. This can always be revisited in a second AfD sometime in the near future. ––Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs)07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to the argument that this was an "early" closure... if the closer had given it another 50 minutes or so, then it would have been a full 7 days, for the sticklers out there. BOZ (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – As I understand DRV, the question is whether the close was a valid exercise of the closer's judgment, not simply whether we at DRV agree or disagree with the editors who took part in the AFD. My answer is that, with multiple Keeps and multiple Deletes, and more Keeps than Deletes, the closer made a reasonable judgment call to Keep. As I understand the appeal, the appellant is saying that the only arguments that should be considered are ones that are lengthy and tedious. Some of the Keep !votes and some of the Delete !votes were lengthy and tedious. Others were very brief, agreeing with another editor. Maybe the appellant would have preferred if the Keep !voters have filibustered with walls of text. They didn't, and I for one appreciate that some of them were terse. My guess is that the appellant also wouldn't have wanted a filibuster and walls of text, and simply won't be satisfied with anything short of their own way. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify my writing, I did not say "the only arguments that should be considered are ones that are lengthy and tedious". I did, however, say that the only arguments that should be considered are "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments" as per our policy. I'm sorry if I expressed myself in a way that was not clear, and I appreciate you taking the time to weigh-in. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist – The keep !votes were based on the sources put forward by Newimpartial. Delete !voters argued that those sources were product reviews and didn't establish notability of the company per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:PRODUCT, or that the sources weren't significant/in-depth coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The longest of the sources put forward that I saw was Gizmodo's review of Heavy Gear, and what it says about Dream Pod 9 is: Currently, publisher Dream Pod 9 has the game split into a purely tactical wargame version, known as Heavy Gear Blitz!, and an RPG element published under the name Silhouette (aka SilCORE) ... (Dream Pod 9 also produces a full line of Heavy Gear miniatures) ..., and that's it. Others are even shorter mentions, like "as is done in Dream Pod 9’s 'Silhouette'", "Heavy Gear is a trademark of Dream Pod 9", "Jovian Chronicles is a science-fiction role-playing game published by Dream Pod 9", "Title: Gear Krieg the Role Playing Game by Dream Pod 9", and "Published by Dream Pod 9". Those policy-based objections to Newimpartial's sources were not addressed by keep !voters (instead, there were unhelpful comments, such as this one in response to a request for a link or DOI for a source: If you can't use Google Scholar for yourself, how does it become my responsibility to do it for you?). A couple editors noted that some of the sources were apparently self-published, but whether they met WP:SPS was not fully discussed. I was surprised by the closer's statement, "I was convinced against the delete votes and nomination itself.", as my understanding is that the closer should be assessing consensus among the voters in the discussion, not evaluating their arguments and deciding which the closer finds more convincing. In this case, no sources were apparently put forward besides brief mentions and product reviews, and the AfD had never been relisted. I think the close should be overturned and re-listed so that editors can have additional time to discuss and reach consensus about whether there are reliable, policy-compliant (e.g., WP:SPS-compliant) sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP, perhaps by someone putting forward the WP:THREE best, and editors discussing if they are significant coverage of the article subject from a reliable source. – Levivich01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is factually incorrect, as it does not address the entire chapter of 'Designers & Dragons' concerning Dream Pod 9, which I cited, nor the 1990s print sources from the company's heyday. Levivich also cites NCORP even though it does not apply to "small groups of closely related people such as ... co-authors, and co-inventors": a carve-out that clearly applies to the authors and developers of the 'Silhouette system'. The ensuing !vote should therefore be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming arguendo that the chapter (pp. 116–125) you mention is WP:SIGCOV from a WP:RS, WP:NCORP#Multiple sources says A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I didn't see in the AfD discussion any consensus that there were two or more sources that met GNG or NCORP. Nor did I see consensus for the notion that the sentence in the introduction of WP:NCORP, This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people), applied to Dream Pod 9, but I did see the argument made that Dream Pod 9 is not "covered by WP:Notability (people)" and therefore that sentence from NCORP was not relevant. One reason this should be relisted is to see if anyone can put forward a second example of WP:SIGCOV, or if there is any policy support or AfD precedent for the "carve-out" contention. – Levivich03:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem dismissive of my dead tree references for some reason, Leviv, perhaps this RS review will give you a clear sense of what I mean. It dedicates several paragraphs to discussing the Silhouette core system, which is a Dream Pod 9 IP that could not be tied to any one individual author/creator - it is a full CREATIVE product in the sense of policy and the carve-out (and per cantankerous contributors elsewhere, the review discusses Dream Pod 9 explicitly rather than relying on NBOOK/NAUTHOR rules for Notability).
Also, to anticipate the kind of churlish comments I have received from others previously, this review is an independent, self-published source that amply meets the requirements of professional standing of the author and, in this case, multiple publications in publications in the field subject to reliable editorial oversight in Pyramid, Games Unplugged and Gaming Outpost, so it is an unquestionable RS for N.
I see no presumptive utility in reopening a discussion so that editors from Missouri can become convinced by additional evidence of the merits of policy-compliant, sourced arguments that already convinced the first closer and most AfD participants. I believe we all have better things to do with our time. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing the close of the AfD; it's not a continuation of the AfD. The source you just provided (which is a self-publishedproduct review) wasn't provided in the AfD (nor did were any specific "dead tree references" provided in the AfD), so it has no bearing on the consensus at the AfD. For example, editors at the AfD didn't look at whether that source complies with SPS and NOTINHERITED. Bringing new sources and arguments here only supports the contention that the AfD should be relisted.
One other thing: aside from the comment I quoted above, in the AfD, you made comments like Please try to keep up. and Would you not rather take up another hobby, like billiards? Those remarks, and the ones above about churlish comments and editors from Missouri constitutes inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that detracts from the collegial environment necessary for constructive collaboration. Please stop making such comments. – Levivich14:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Surprised no one has mentioned WP:BADNAC here. There's not a consensus to keep here IMO given the low quality of the keep votes (you can't have a snow keep if only one person has voted) and especially given none of the keep votes discussed the sources as they relate to WP:NCORP, which applies here. This needs to be overturned and relisted. SportingFlyerT·C04:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, much as I respect your work, you can't simply assert that NCORP must be followed when a policy-compliant argument has been made that the CREATIVE carve-out applies. That isn't really cricket. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is not the correct analysis, as that exception looks at groups of people such as families to which WP:NBIO applies, but WP:NBIO does not apply to a company. But this needs to be overturned anyways just on the contested close of a non-admin. SportingFlyerT·C14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a group of inventors or a group of entertainers can be a company, so also can be a game studio. That is the correct and unbiased analysis.
Also, there is no "contested close of a non-admin" rule to Deletion Review, that I can see. Deletion review "is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." A non-admin close should not be overturned at DRV simply because it has been contested (by the nominator, in this case); there has to be an actual procedural error in the close.
Since you invoked BADNAC earlier, perhaps you meant "controversial" rather than "contested". But given the actual discussion, I am not seeing the controversy: the nominator was followed by only two rather ill-informed !delete votes, while the balance of !votes, evidence and argumentation was clearly !keep. It doesn't become controversial because YOUDONTLIKEIT.
And I understand that you were somehow offended by the "Snow" preceding my "keep" vote, but I really don't see how a subject with reliable online sourcing, producing multiple Notable works per CREATIVE, and with significant dead tree coverage from its heyday could not meet with an eventual keep outcome, per NOTTEMPORARY. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an error in the process, in this case a non-administrator closed this as a keep without a closing statement, and when pressed on their talk page essentially admitted they did not weigh consensus but instead just agreed with the keep !votes, which is a supervote. Please do NOT accuse me of voting just because IDONTLIKEIT, I really don't give a shit about the article and you're coming very close to assuming bad faith. You're still incorrect on which policy applies, and you also need to realise that snow keep votes should only be used when a number of people have voted keep ahead of you. As friendly advice, doing so with your first vote makes it look like you don't know what you're doing, which is not what you want when you're trying to get others to agree with you. SportingFlyerT·C15:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you're saying, but I don't see any requirement here or here for any more of a "closing statement" than the closer gave. I don't close, so I don't know where those instructions might be hidden; care to enlighten me?
Also, your repeated assertion without evidence or comprehension of the subject matter about "which policy applies" really rankles me, which is why I thought YOUDONTLIKEIT; however, I certainly meant to maintain AGF in spite of my rankles, especially in respect of your work elsewhere in the project.
And yeah, I won't try to use Snow keep for similar rhetorical effect next time; I'll stick to Speedy. I just liked the Game of Thrones feel of it, you know? Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly about a company and doesn't mention a single person directly associated with the company, but I digress - has little to do with what should happen here at DRV. Also, please note a "speedy keep" implies the article meets one of the criteria - just voting speedy keep without mentioning how any of the speedy keep criteria apply is similar to a snow keep vote above. I recommend just !voting keep and presenting a quality argument. SportingFlyerT·C19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The fact that this AfD involves a lot of editors who've had these conversations with each other around the topics did not help the discussion. Nor does it help that there was a NAC closure, and early to boot so it's not even like sysops had passed on making a "tough call" as there was no call yet to make. There seems to be serious debate among the participants about the validity of the sources provided to show notability. In the end this might be enough to carry the day for keep as several editors are endorsing their value but is also a situation where further perspectives might help to clarify consensus. If after a relist there has been no further discussion a keep close seems appropriate. But we have enough problems here that a relist seems like the appropriate action to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Terrible close. No explanation given for the decision. 50 minutes early, which matters because some AfD !voters scroll up from the bottom of the 7th-day log. And totally inappropriate for a non-admin close. When the article is about a company and the reason for deletion is that it is sourced to its own website, the spam concerns are such that we have to give the deletion rationale full and proper consideration. Another seven days would help us get there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there were no spam concerns at the time of the close. This company is well past its prime; NOTTEMPORARY is a much more relevant concern than PROMO in this case. And the close was "early" by less than an hour; there had been several days for anyone besides Chetsford to raise issues, if appropriate. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
