Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creature of Havoc

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. As there are a few outstanding redirect !votes despite a consensus for keep, I'd recommend that any discussion of possible redirection proceed to the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creature of Havoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not all books are notable, even if by notable authors, and this appears to be one of them. There's one reference here one might call reliable, but it does no more than mention the book briefly; I cannot find other valid sources--reviews, discussions, etc.--in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a project underway to expand the more significant gamebook pages and to add references. The project is ongoing and has not yet reached Creature of Havoc. Deleting the page now seems unconstructive. Deagol2 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if no references can be found it can't be helped. (Plus, it can always be recreated, written properly with the help of references.) If I may make a suggestion: Steve Jackson (UK game designer) does not appear to have a single reliable source, and any work should probably start there. Whether Appelcline's Designers & Dragons is reliable in the first place is hard to assess. It's published by Evil Hat Productions, but that company itself publishes role-playing games and is therefore probably not a reliable independent source. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, what? Because it's published by a completely different outfit in the same industry you think that establishes lack of independence? Sure Designers & Dragons isn't independent of games produced by Evil Hat (actually by Mongoose Publishing in the case of the version normally used for sources, Evil Hat is producing the second edition) but you're claiming that merely being in the same industry means they aren't independent. So it is impossible for any source published in a book to be independent with respect to another book because publishing is the same industry? Neonchameleon (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect per WP:BKCRIT with only a single source mentioning it in passing; I had a look earlier and couldn't find any better ones. That Jackson considers the book "quite difficult" can be mentioned in context in the main Fighting Fantasy article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fighting Fantasy. I think a redirect (or maybe even move to draft space) would probably be best, especially if an organized attempt to source these topics is underway. Browsing through the category, they really do need help in that regard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine by me, Pirate. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I'm sure this could be sourced but until the refs appear it is best to redirect and leave the content intact in the history. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fighting Fantasy, in case enough sources can eventually be found to recreate it. Miniapolis 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks or main series page. I think that we should leave the history behind because I am finding it mentioned quite frequently ([1], [2]) and I keep getting the impression that there's more coverage out there that hasn't made it on to the Internet. It's fairly frustrating, especially since it just seems so freaking cool, but we just don't have the coverage. I do agree with the idea of userfying a copy of the page, especially if there's a concentrated effort to improve the articles, as there is a chance that more coverage could be found. At the very least I'd certainly endorse the idea of any FF pages getting transferred to a fan Wikia on the series, if there is a serious chance of deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm changing my argument to keep, based on the rationales below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not all books are notable, even if by notable authors, and this appears to be one of them - apparently consensus has changed on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It seems fairly obvious where this discussion is heading. Some additional sources have been added to the article since the AFD was raised but judging from the comments above these are not deemed sufficient. You are the Hero - A History of Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks by Jonathan Green is due to be published early in September, so it may be that it will contain enough reference-able information to justify the article being recovered. Deagol2 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean this here? If it does cover Creature of Havoc, and you can get a copy when it comes out, then if this article is in draft space you can work on it, take it to WP:DRV and it may be back in article space in just a few weeks. BOZ (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little confused by your reply, the consensus alluded to is redirect and leave history - so userfy and DRV is unlikely to be needed (but of course the article would be back soon if it is deleted). Szzuk (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it may have only had one reference when it was nominated, but it has enough now. Also if we know that a new book about FF is due to be published next month then it would be premature to delete or redirect it now. Richard75 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at those sources, four only seem to be the "trivial mention" that WP:GNG defines as insufficient: Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games only offers a 48-word plot summary and a one-sentence "One of the more interesting later entries in the series." capsule review, sf-encyclopedia.com gives it half a sentence, eurogamer.net simply namechecks it alongside four other books and vice.com has one of the writers saying "The ones that were more popular were the most difficult ones. [...] Creature of Havoc is quite difficult too." The SciFi Now top ten listing stretches to a few sentences, but it seems to be a WP:NEWSBLOG written by a non-professional writer rather than a reliable published source. Even giving SciFi Now the benefit of the doubt, these don't add up to the "significant coverage in [multiple] reliable sources" required by WP:GNG. --McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SciFiNow reference is to the blog for the pro-print-magazine of the same name. The blog author is the editor of the magazine, not a non-professional, so meets the requirements laid down in WP:NEWSBLOG. I feel that to write if off as merely a few sentences is a little disingenuous. Deagol2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, okay, if he's the editor. It is only five sentences, though. And it would still only give us a single non-trivial source. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is also You Are The Hero by Jonathan Green - a 100,000 word book on Fighting Fantasy. It is not cited yet, but immediate citation is not required by WP:NOTABILITY. The guideline states that its existence is sufficient as long as the article is updated in due course. "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Deagol2 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per agreement with reasons stated by Richard75, but I will add that it would be preferable to draftify rather than redirect. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The referencing in the article has improved significantly since this discussion was started and there is scope for further improvement the very near future with the publication of the new book next week. Deagol2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (possibly with no prejudice against relisting in a couple of months) - it has a minimum of one source under wp:N (SciFiNow), with You Are The Hero as a second almost presumed. Given it makes it into top 10 lists, at the moment it is very likely that it is going to cover it - immediate citation is not necessary. And it looks as if no one has a stack of old White Dwarves or the like which used to frequently reviewed such books. I also note that it was not only reprinted twice in separate series, but its initial printing it was number 24 and it shot up to number 4 in the reprints due to popular demand. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2014 (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.