Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfolk

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Although there are a few opinions for delete, the overwhelming general consensus seems to be for keep. (non-admin closure) IWantGears5 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfolk

Hillfolk (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)

Fails GNG. Article on a commercial product (a series of two game instructions booklets) has three references, two of which do not actually mention the product at all and are probably not RS even if they did, and the third of which is merely its name listed on a tiny game awards website (see below). Additional background follows:

  • BEFORE search: The standard BEFORE search (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) finds no RS to the following search strings: (hillfolk AND RPG) OR (hillfolk AND game) OR (hillfolk AND "Robin Laws") except for this brief mention in a holiday gift list round-up on WUVM-FM radio [1].
  • Note on awards: The article claims the game won two awards, however: (1) we do not have an inherent notability criteria for commercial products which have won awards but otherwise fail GNG, (2) these are very tiny, niche awards that, themselves, are probably so un-notable that they don't qualify for WP articles. While an award like the Origins Award might be impressive for a game, the "Indie RPG Awards" and "Diana Jones Award" would realistically be the game industry's equivalent to the concrete industry's Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design [2]; something that is a relevant achievement to only a tiny sub-section of the population.
  • Redirect / Merge not advised: Redirect or Merge should not be applied because the term "Hillfolk" is too common and is more likely to be used by visitors searching for unrelated, ethnographic/demographic articles such as Appalachian Americans than for info on a small game from 2013. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Diana Jones awards are notable even if the article needs a rewrite (the Indy RPG awards probably aren't). On the other hand as the awards committee is largely anonymous it is not provable that Robin Laws is not on the committee. The Diana Jones award link, now it's been fixed (and hasn't had a bot give a six year out of date link) also gives three paragraphs on the game. The nominator also clearly didn't bother checking the RPGamer link- yes, there is a single sentence at the link, but the single sentence says to click through to a seven paragraph article. (The Indy RPG Awards link is down). Neonchameleon (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources are almost invariably insufficient to meet our standards of "significant coverage". A majority of the AfCs we're declining these days have two sources. Proof of life is not proof of notability. The Diana Jones awards are notable Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media. They are a niche sectional award like the aforementioned concrete industry award. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources are multiple independent sources, and the sources in question provide in-depth information rather than being single line mentions. Just because you're declining them on AfC doesn't mean that you are following
Wp:N when doing so. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And while on the subject it's just taken me all of 30 seconds to find an article specifically on the Diana Jones Award (rather than merely mentioning it in the context of something that won it) in Polygon. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in Polygon Like I said, "Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media." While the mention in Polygon may be fine for the article on the awards themselves, it fails as a demonstration of their wider societal importance to sustain one of their recipients. And, of course, this is aside from the fact that - unlike NFILM - we have no inherent notability standards for commercial products that permit them to overcome the GNG if they have received industry trophies like the Diana Jones Award (for the games industry) or the Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design (for the concrete industry). Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your argument here is that Polygon is a different industry. The Diana Jones award is for tabletop games, Polygon is for computer games. When the Alfred Lindell award gets write-ups in Interior Decorating magazines let me know - even if both are arguably about building houses. The other problem with your argument is that the Diana Jones award is reliable and does cover the award winners in non-trivial detail in a reliable manner so actually stands as a reliable source itself. (Arguably the solid paragraph for each nominee shortlisted is enough). Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And also two sources are categorically enough for
wp:NBOOK. RPGamer's one, the Diana Jones award is another. If Boz can dig up much in Designers & Dragons that will make a third. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added three more, for a total of five. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neonchameleon. I will add Designers & Dragons to the article tomorrow, even though the nominator has argued against its use in other recent AFDS. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added Designers and Dragons along with two other RS: Geeknative and Le Maraudeur. The latter contains quite a bit of additional content in French that could be used to strengthen the article, but I have not had time to do that today. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Neonchameleon and User:Imminent77. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the nom has conceded that Designers & Dragons is reliable, and the discussion of Hillfolk is not trivial. The game has been extensively reviewed, received numerous awards, and is a clear GNG and NBOOK pass, even if it might fail NCEMENT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, not seeing a huge amount of sourcing, but it has won a couple of awards. CAN i SEE SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH KEEP AND DELETE.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven - my argument for delete is that, even following the addition of sources, the article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources necessary to establish its notability and that mere evidence that something exists is not synonymous with notability. Specifically:
Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will AGF, Chet, but you are simply incorrect. Designers and Dragons, as you would know if you had read it, is not a compendium but a history, organized by publisher and discussing trends and milestones in roleplaying over 40 years. The discussion of Hillfolk is far from a TRIVIALMENTION but is actually a substantial discussion of the role of the game in the trends of the 2000s, as you would would know if you had read the mention (or even the WP article you have sent to AfD. (Plenty of games so have passing mentions in Designers & Dragons, but Hillfolk is not one of them).
Geeknative is a respected site written by a journalist who has written professionally on RPGs for The Scotsman and Enworld, and is therefore a perfect example of the kind of self-published source that is in fact reliable.
Le Maraudeur is a professionally-published game magazine in French which offers an INDEPENDENT, multi-page review of Hilkfolk, which you did not mention, for some reason.
I have fixed the link for the Indie RPG awards.
And the Diana Jones award is given by a committee of (more than one) industry professionals, as you would know if you'd read the discussion in, you guessed it, Volume 4 of Designers and Dragons. So, based on your own count, Chet, we now have either four or five RS. Isn't it time to drop the stick? Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Designers & Dragons is, sadly, not "a compendium of every game ever created"... too many times have I looked for games in there to add it as a source, and did not find them.  :( BOZ (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on basis of Diana Jones award; it may not be the Spiel de Jahres, but it's a significant enough award that a recipient of it should meet minimal notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that the three RS I added today will help you sleep easy with your !vote, Simon. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that this a) won an Indie RPG award and b) that this is being discounted as notable, which would be a mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link for that, too. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it sad that,thanks to my response to Chet's strategy of provocative posting, this may be my last AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source for that Diana Jones award states The games in Hillfolk, created by some of the finest designers working today (as well as, it must be admitted, some members of the Diana Jones Award Committee). --Imminent77 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation. It seems to be an issue that the source is not
WP:INDEPENDENT. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, User:Imminent77: what source are you citing? Nvm; found the link in the article; I was looking in the discussion here.
I know NOTINHERITED and all that, but since the game includes settings by a long list of giants in the industry, and since we don't need the DJA to meet WPN and NBOOK, I think if anything the status of the book as a kind of compilation album of industry greats enhances its status, frankly. The DJA is just icing. Newimpartial (talk)
Meh weak keep The Diane Jones award is notable but, as someone with a good deal of expertise in the RPG area and publishing, the game itself isn't particular notable inside that industry so it's not particularly so outside. It doesn't get a lot of press inside the industry. If we went by the
WP:BAND band notability criteria as an example (bear with me), it has a notable author but even for bands it requires two independently notable members. I'm honestly on the fence on this one, it's far from a big name RPG line. I also agreed with Chetsford's comment on Designers and Dragons. Yes Designers and Dragons is a notable work. Yes it's a reliable source to source information. However I'd say it's not a source to claim the actual notability of a subject unless the book makes specific notability claims. Having just reread the section on Hillfolk, I agree there's nothing there to denote actual notability other than Shannon choose to write about it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Really? In what sense does "The resulting game is very literary, focusing on themes, storybeats, and webs of relationships. It’s also the first Laws game that feels like it was directly influenced by the indie community ... When you put together those elements you have a pretty good overview of indie game mechanics in the ’00s. The most shocking aspect of Hillfolk (for traditional roleplayers at least) is the fact that it downplays what it calls “procedural” scenes, ..." (which is just the nub of the reference, not the whole discussion), placed in the major historical document of its field, not suggest Notability? All we need for NBOOK is two or three reviews, which we already have; given the pressures of space Applecline faced, his discussion of Hillfolk is at least worth a review. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The product reviews contain significant coverage which seems to be independent of the publisher. While the Dana Jones Award does not, in itself, establish notability it does give a solid marker for significance ie it shows that the reviews are likely not just 'we have to find some game to discuss in this issue' and greatly decreases the likelihood that the reviews are the result of native advertising or a publisher's PR campaign. The material that exists in the article is not, in my opinion, quite enough to demonstrate notability but, I think it likely that
    sufficient sources exist to get it past GNG. Jbh Talk 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Won prominent industry award. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning the Diana Jones Award is no small feat. Agree with GRuban. Z359q (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (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/Hillfolk&oldid=856271052"