Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutants and Masterminds

< 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 Re-closed as keep. I had closed this as keep earlier but the nominator protested, so I re-opened it. Since then, others have called for a keep as well, so I think that WP:SNOW is definitely applicable now if it wasn't before. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants and Masterminds

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

The extensive coverage of this game's settings and instructions have been copied from a gaming playing Wiki, but lack of independent sources fail to provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong and Speedy Keep - this is getting ridiculous Gavin. This is a multiple award winning game. Your nomination for deletion of this article is unresearched and produced in bad faith. Web Warlock 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Researching is not looking at one page. In the few minutes since your uncalled for nomination I have discovered over a dozen awards for this game and I have more to add. I am not taking it personal at all, but nominating a page fro deletion right after your tag is removed sounds like you are taking it personal to me. If you want to show you are a professional and unbiased then withdraw your nomination now. Web Warlock 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All you had to do was look at an Amazon.com entry to find evidence of awards. Please review WP:OSTRICH. Zagalejo^^^ 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep - Agree with Web Warlock. Nominating an article in retaliation for someone removing a tag is a poor reason for making such a nomination, which seems to be what has happened in this case. This game is probably the most popular title in the superhero roleplaying game genre today. Rray 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable RPG. Possible bad faith nomination. -Chunky Rice 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep awards mentioned here at least, and these nominations from Gavin are getting a little ridiculous. SamBC(talk) 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid keep — Per above. I've assumed good faith up until now, but, based on past history, nom. appears demonstrating an anti-gaming agenda. Hmm... — RJH (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of the above. If I understand correctly, an AfD nominator can close the debate himself with a keep result in snowballing cases like this one. Is this correct, Gavin? --Goochelaar 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Tone it down fellas - Those sources are kinda borderline. That said, it's a close enough that it doesn't deletion isn't warranted, and the article should certainly be salvageable. Could still use some press sources or something of the sort to flesh it out. That's an awful lot of content for so few citations and so tangentially related sources, raising legitimate concerns about WP:OR. MrZaiustalk 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) PS: In defense of the nom/of my labeling the sources as "borderline," the GenCon awards plainly meet WP:RS, but that's only one strong source. The others are some forum/slashdot-style news site's readers awards (borderline RS - wouldn't stand on it's own, but it's valid next to the GenCon source), the official site of the game (primary source), and a bookmarked search at a bookstore (now deleted, for obvious reasons). Nom incorrect, but it is inappropriate to not still assume good faith.[reply]
  • Comment Working a full time job and doing these edits as time permits I have a few dozen other sources and links. Web Warlock 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC) PS: The Bad-Faith assumption is based on a pattern of behavior over the course of a couple of weeks and several dozen similar nominations. Granted, the links I have put are, in and of themselves, not enough, but combined leads this to a strong keep. Web Warlock 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As does the nom, surely. The bad faith call still didn't really seem warranted in this particular case - can't speak for any over-arching trends. Here's a couple links to print sources, btw: [1]. No GNS hits other than press releases, no other obvious print sources from a 10 min search. MrZaiustalk 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction - I guess I can speak to overarching trends. Over the last few days, the nom only targetted Exalted in any particular depth, and, IMHO, that was wholly warranted. Really not seeing anything approaching bad faith. MrZaiustalk 18:55, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mutants_and_Masterminds&oldid=1138105553"