Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric and the Gazebo

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 No consensus to delete - default keep although additionnal sources would probably be require, so I will tag it in consequence.--JForget 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and the Gazebo

edit
Eric and the Gazebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article about a humorous role-playing game anecdote was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) in May 2007 under speedy deletion criterion A7. The deletion was recently contested on the Help Desk by a person claiming to be the author of the story in question. As the story first appeared in a print publication, the article does not seem to satisfy the deliberately strict requirements of CSD A7. Since there is also some evidence that the story may in fact be notable, and as the deleting admin has retired from Wikipedia, I have chosen to undelete the article and place it on AfD instead. My personal opinion here is neutral, perhaps leaning slightly towards keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, for now. This, along with the Head of Vecna story, are the quintessential RPG stories. There's one source in the article, and it is secondary, but I'm not sure if that establishes notability for it. I'll try and dig something else up on it, the story really has reached "urban legend" status. And we really need to find a better name for the article. Merging into gazebo is also an option, but according to the talk page, it keeps getting merged out. --UsaSatsui 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I laughed out loud, probably because I haven't heard the story in almost 20 years. But unless secondary sources have written about the story's importance as an anecdote or analyzed it as an example of communication issues in gaming, it isn't remotely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source referenced is a possible secondary source (or at least a reprint of one), and since it's been referenced in some outside products, I think the sourcing issues can be addressed. My main concern (and the reason I don't have a "keep" up yet) is whether or not the story is significant enough to warrant it's own article.--UsaSatsui 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards keep. DS 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definite secondary sources which confirm that this is one of the seminal D&D stories, and has influenced many streams of the gaming culture. All are, however, in essence, retellings of the same incident, the same original telling, and the same influences. In short, it happened once, had its effect and will never be repeated (unlike the Head of Vecna which, with a relabelling and a credulous player-group, almost might be made to happen again). Neutral on the "vote", but can confirm multiple 2ndary sources. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Unless there's a source for notability. E.g. if the statement At least two gaming related businesses have drawn their name from this story. in the article is extended to name those businesses (with source) and they are any notable, that might help. The best I could find myself was a mention in some usenet FAQ. --Allefant 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a classic anecdote among roleplayers. Axl 11:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remove PROD and put in a source tag instead. Web Warlock 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But then again, I would say that, wouldn't I? The game companies referred to are probably Wild Gazebo Productionsand Dread Gazebo: I had a message from the author of the original article and those are the two he mentioned. Can I just say I'd be happy to re-write, just as long as someone can walk me through what I need to include to show notability.JustIgnoreMe 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, the requirements at WP:N should be met. Basically, we should find an independent, reliable source which asserts notability, i.e. repeats a claim like "this anecdote had a big impact on the RPG community". Personal homepages are not independent/reliable enough for that, and I'm not sure that FAQ is. And not every D&D story being told in a D&D magazine is notable. To me, it seems this one indeed is notable though, just there's no adequate sources proving so. --Allefant 11:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What if we redefine the problem? I've always seen this piece as an anecdote, like an urban myth except true. What would be the implications of reclassifying "Eric" as, say, a short piece of non-fiction? Would it then be sufficient to show that it had been printed in two reliable independent sources? JustIgnoreMe 19:11, 8 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_and_the_Gazebo&oldid=1069987936"