Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunnies and Burrows

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 keep. John254 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnies and Burrows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Despite this gaming instructions being published 30-years ago, no claim to notability per WP:NOTABILITY appears to have been established with independent sources. Perhaps this could be merged with List of furry role-playing games? --Gavin Collins 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First off, this has nothing whatsoever to do with furries, and predates that culture by several decades. Second, this is one of the more well-known old RPGs, which had a significant impact on that genre, and is now taken over and published by one of the major industries in the market. Aside from that, it's a published book (not self-published) with reasonable sales figures and market coverage. >Radiant< 09:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What are the sales figures? If you could let us know, this would be a step towards ascertaining notability. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Steve Jackson decided to buy and republish it should be an obvious clue. Also, there's plenty of outside reviews such as this one, although most of them will be offline since B&B predates the internet. >Radiant< 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Why didn't you ask, or make an effort towards ascertaining it, before nomination? --Kizor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This game, as the article indicates has something of a cult status among gamers still today. It is notable for it's emphasis on social role-playing, something unheard of in the time it was out and for it's completely non-human approach. Web Warlock 10:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep What it could use is some additional sources. Definitely not a merge issue. I'll try to find some. Turlo Lomon 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability clearly established now (with references!). First RPG with martial arts. First RPG with skill system. First RPG that allowed for non-humanoid play. First RPG to appeal as widely to women as to men> all of this is sourced, so I upgraded my comment from Strong Keep to Speedy keep. Turlo Lomon 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:N. There are a lot of ghits, but these are all personal websites, forum posts, and non-reliable sources about RPGs. The one reference added by Turlo Lomon is a personal website, and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's reliability requirements. —gorgan_almighty 11:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my view to Weak Keep based on the improved references. Weak because many of those references are still of questionable reliability. —gorgan_almighty 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the website of a game publisher independant of B&B. Specifically the company that publishes Fudge (role-playing game system). How exactly is this isn't notable again? Turlo Lomon 11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The reliability of a competing game publisher is questionable, but it is irrelevant in this case since it is the personal website of Steffan O'Sullivan, not the official website of his company. Being a personal website, he can put whatever he wants on it, therefore there is no fact-checking or editorial oversight that takes place. That makes this an unreliable source. A reliable source would be a newspaper (or well-known magazine) article, for instance. Find something like that that talks in-depth about this RPG.—gorgan_almighty 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the official website of his company, but not going to argue that right now. I also added links to multiple reviews by different companies. They are a bit messy, but I will work on cleaning them up when I get home from work. Turlo Lomon 11:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding a newspaper... I actually have a magazine with a review on the original B&B on CD, but that's at home. I will try to get the exact vol and date information. Turlo Lomon 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look through some of my Dragon magazine articles tonight. There should be something there as well. Web Warlock 12:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Google test is irrelevant for items that predate the internet. >Radiant< 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems like enough online sources have been added, considering it predates the internet and google. Google hits are irrelevant anyway. Article can be improved, and seems notable - Fosnez 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, it seems like enough sources have been added to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Roman Empire predated the internet. A Google search will find a few reliable sources. There are no exceptions to the requirement that articles be based on reliable sources - including "it predates the internet". MarkBul 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was reliable sources that the OP discounted because they appeared to be a personal website. In addition, there is now a ton of new references that would have been easily found via google. Turlo Lomon 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball keep, article is now well referenced and clearly establishes notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Per above args. — RJH (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This game was mentionned in a history of RPGs in the French RPG magazine Casus Belli, and it's got an article on the Guide du Rôliste Galactique. That's enough sources for me. Rell Canis 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you are able to find out the publication details for the Casus Belli article? It would definitely remove any doubt about B&B's notability. --Goochelaar 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources in the updated version of the article, confirming the notability of the game. --Goochelaar 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because Oh my God, Watership Down is my favoritist book ever!. I can't believe they made an RPG based on it. Oh, right, and because the sources establish notability, blah blah blah. But that's far less important. --UsaSatsui 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I'd draw attention to the pattern of a whole slew of gaming articles being nominated for deletion by someone apparently ignorant of the culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I moved the page to Bunnies & Burrows since this is the published name of all works involved. Turlo Lomon 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above and arguments elsewhere Percy Snoodle 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again, per above arguments (Signed: don't have login yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.220.29 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten, I believe that notability is now firmly established within the article. Yamaguchi先生 00:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I couldn't any arguement for keep that hasn't already been made so does becoming collectable indicate notability a search of Amazon indicates that the going price for a second 1992 edition is $75.00.KTo288 00:51, 16 September 2007 (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.