Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Falkenstein (role-playing game)

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castle Falkenstein (role-playing game)

Castle Falkenstein (role-playing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This book of gaming instructions fails notability criteria WP:Fiction or any other notability criteria. The article contains details of the game instructions but no context or sourced analysis of its impact or historical significance, for which there is no independent evidence. --Gavin Collins 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep At least your arguments are sounding better. It would be nice to have more then 24 hours to fix things. This book - actually 2 (which is what you should be looking at - WP:BOOK), won two awards, etc. I will agree that sources are not added to the article, but it will be fixed. Turlo Lomon 09:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple award-winner, passes WP:BK Percy Snoodle 10:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Multiple award-winning game, near cult status in the industry, a very different approach to role-palying. Web Warlock 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep among prizes, it won the 1994 Best RPG origin award. http://www.originsgamefair.com/awards/1994/list-of-winners - Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 11:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. User:Gavin.collins is just trawling through Wikipedia for anything related to GURPS, AFDing everything he sees. He appears to be making some kind of WP:POINT, though what that may be is unclear. And he persists on calling them "game instructions", a term which I as a roleplaying game aficionado find completely off the mark and dripping with condescension. --Agamemnon2 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This book of gaming instructions won the Origin award for best game rules. --Gavin Collins 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• And the Dixie Chicks won the Grammy for "best noise recording", right? Why do you continue to do this? It's been demonstrated, time and again, that you don't have any sort of background knowledge on this subject, yet you continue to try and get articles discussing it deleted, citing guidelines that don't even apply. I would not try and pick out which business and economics related articles I feel are important and nominate the rest for deletion (and if I did, I would clearly be disrupting things), you shouldn't be doing the same outside of your area of expertise. --UsaSatsui 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No joke. It won Best Roleplaying Rules. Check the link yourself. --Gavin Collins 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, sarcasm isn't needed. A simple explanation, or using the {{fact}} tab would have sufficed. Turlo Lomon 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• And your point would be what? --UsaSatsui 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe his point was that the link was not from a 3rd party and needs to be verifiable. I added a proper link for Origins Award. Working on the 2nd now. Notability CLEARLY established now. Turlo Lomon 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gavin, can we talk about this? You seem to be sticking fast to a definition that all other parties consider inaccurate. It's a possibility that you consider the others telling you so biased (and I'm not saying you do, but hope that you don't find voicing the idea offensive as you have been very liberal with suspicions of biases and conflicts of interest in the past). If that's the case, will you listen to me? I have basic knowledge of role-playing games on account of being a geek - it's a cultural thing - and I've studied some RPGs because I was curious how they worked, but I've never played a tabletop RPG, don't have strong feelings about them, am not affiliated with the RPG wikiproject, and the closest thing to a game corporation that I've ever worked for was a hospital.
  *stops to take a drink of water*
  And I'm telling you that the award for Best Roleplaying Rules was for that particular part of Castle Falkenstein. It's analogous to winning the Oscar for Best Cinematography or maybe Best Writing or Best Actor in a Leading Role. "Gaming instructions" is not a fair or accurate description. --Kizor 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I could disagree with the statement about trawling, but he AfD'd several other and independent game systems that, at some point, had GURPS versions made of them, and nominated them on the grounds that they should be merged to GURPS books... that's incompatible with even a basic knowledge of the field. --Kizor 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Important award-winning, genre-influencing game. Ukulele 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, mainly because I'm completely exasperated with the nominator, but the article stands on it's own merits too. --UsaSatsui 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, basically for all the previously mentioned reasons. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It had significant awards as stated per several editors.--JForget 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 05:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Per above; sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Ukulele, eveybody else. Nominator appears to not be reading these articles or not understanding them. Edward321 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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.