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 I do not see a possibility for improving this article in a manner that would comply with the need for sources. I am closing this AFD with a delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplay Online[edit]

Roleplay Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It seems like a great site, but I can't find any independent sources to establish notability. A search of news archives and RPG periodicals turns up no mentions. A search of reliable RPG sites and general web search turns up nothing except a bunch of directory style entries. The topic entirely lacks sources outside of itself and directory entries. This not the place for directory entries nor promotional entries. Vassyana (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as above. I found nothing but links, no reviews or independent coverage at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources found, also agree with nom.--Otterathome (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As I'm the one responsible for this article becoming an issue, I'm of mixed opinion. I certainly don't want to infringe on anyone ability to use the net for fun purposes. Even if this article is basically an advertisement it does little harm, and as others have pointed out, the Wikipedia entry is about its only Google claim to fame. For all the gamers out there, it does have that benefit, so I would hate the entry to go away. However, what happened to me should not happen to any responsible netter out there. So if it remains, I would like to see it contain a warning. Can the authors produce another phrasing of my concern? (Dcholtx (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, If content is not changed to reflect my concerns. Dcholtx (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

RPoL comprises of two things, a custom written BB system and the RP portion.

Many BBs have articles on Wikipedia;

• UBB.classic
• UBB.threads
• YaBB
• PhpBB3
• AEF
• Snitz Forums 2000
• RForum

... I'm sure you get the idea. Many of these are virtually unheard of or no longer active, I wonder why RPoL is targeted for removal. See Comparison of Internet forum software (ASP), Comparison of Internet forum software (PHP) and Comparison of internet forum software (other) for a list of all the software around and the numerous links to Wikipedia articles on the software.

The RolePlay portion sells itself, and quite obviously does it well as Treasure Tables lists the site as being over ten times larger than any other RP-based site out there. With such a large user-base the need for constant self-promotion is no longer needed, thus there are no longer any administrators or moderators going around to other sites trying to tout RPoL. It's all done by "word of mouth" recommendations. Thus you won't find the blatant attempts to generate traffic on RP news sites that other BB RP sites have to resort to.

Check out recommendations such as those on Wizards of the Coast Forums and White Wolf Forums. The aforementioned Treasure Tables page is also a good source of information.

Thanks for the reference. This one in particular. [1] At first I thought maybe it was just me, getting old and crotchety. I do not know the person that started this thread and never would have known about this without your help. Dcholtx (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this message RPoL has 3,061,272 posts on the system, which (according to Big Boards) puts it at about the 502nd largest BB system (the site currently has 2,094 recorded, so that's the top 25%) they have record of. Larger than Overclockers Australia and Anarchy Online. 202.89.161.156 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This IP's only contributions have been to this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

"there are no longer any administrators or moderators going around to other sites trying to tout RPoL. It's all done by "word of mouth" recommendations." Quite the opposite, in point of fact. RPoL is one of the few such sites which allows people to advertise other places to game, whether over the net, or in the real world.

The article was never intended as an ad for the site. The authors are not the administrators of the site, but the people who use it. Occasional input from the site administrators has been, largely, the provision or correction of technical details (dates, figures, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.68.12 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This IP user's contributions have also been only to the Roleplay online article. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It does indeed seem like a fantastic site with an enthusiastic userbase. However, what's in question is whether or not there are sufficient independent and reliable sources to produce a good quality article about the topic. Sadly, there is a complete lack of such sources. The topic may have enough independent and reliable coverage for an article at some point in the future, but it does not currently. Vassyana (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm a bit puzzled by all this. Because a user only contributes to one article does not mean their opinion is of less import?

Secondly I didn't realise it was a requirement for something to be famous to be in Wikipedia. I can't see anything in Wikipedia's article guidelines that indicate that a article must have "independent and reliable sources". I can see the merit in why they'd be desirable to make a "good quality article", however I can't see where it's a hard set requirement in Wikipedia's five pillars or rules.

To add to my confusion I don't see why some of the previously mentioned articles still exist, yet there is a move to delete the RPoL article. Overclockers Australia has zero external references (the RPoL article at least has one), yet the OCAU article merely has a request for sources or references, not a deletion request, outstanding since 2006. RForum is virtually unheard of, barely meets the 1kb stub Rule of Thumb, and also contains no references; somehow this has no deletion or correction requests.

I don't think either of the example articles should be deleted. Request for improvement, sure, but deletion? The article can be improved, absolutely (want another reference?, here's a quick one; RPoL Revisited | Lone GM), but why request deletion on something that (a) can be improved upon and (b) when there are demonstrated cases of pages with far worse content.

After all, don't the Wikipedia guidelines say "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia"? 202.89.161.156 (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are similar and worse examples. The first pillar of the five makes it clear that a topic lacking sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia (since it tells us to cite verifiable sources and avoid making claims not made by reliable sources). I attempted to find reliable sources, as noted in my AfD listing rationale and came up empty. While LoneGM is a good blog, it is not a reliable source. Vassyana (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability that you just referenced (emphasis mine);

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources"

and

"All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy".

There is clearly a distinction made between what should be done and what must be done. NPOV must be done (and the reason for the undo & edit war of yesterday), whereas (as I've said previously) references should be done.

You're talking about a RolePlay site here. Something that, if one was to be cynical, you could say is done by a whole bunch of people who live in fantasy-land and who never grew up. How reliable is a source going to get on such a topic?

No claims have been made in the article that cannot be verified as accurate. Trying to find external links to something as conceptual as RolePlay is playing with fire, you're not going to get your Neutral point of view.

When relevant, yes, one should refer to external sources, but when (for example) listing the features of a software package, the definitive list is available direct from the designer. Going by what other people think is the feature list is just going to introduce inaccuracies. (Heck, look at Office 2003, another page that has been marked for improvement but not deletion.)

Again, merely because something is not so widely known as to warrant Slashdot articles (where, incidentally, RPoL has been mentioned on several times) or news headlines, ergo not getting "reliable sources", I don't see how it disqualifies it for Wikipedia. This is not a popularity contest, why is the entire article being judged on something that Wikipedia states as being desirable, but not mandatory?

I'm well aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, however when trying to find some guideline as to what is and is not acceptable, I do not think it inappropriate to look at other articles. When similar or worse articles have received administration attention and have received requests for improvement, not deletion, then I think it only natural and fair to ask why not in this case. While not 100% attainable, surely the Wiki team strives for uniformity. 202.89.161.156 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- So is the article now flagged for improvement or deletion? Both are on the main page, which is bizarre and confusing. Easun (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs improvement either way. Moreover, if it happens to be improved during this AfD, it might be more likely to be kept. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it has the high potential to be a waste of time. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (everyone seems to be ignoring the point that it does not say "must", but "should"). As far as software is concerned I would imagine the most accurate way of getting facts regarding the features would be to talk to the developers, not third parties. How is this reference requirement supposed to be met without ignoring the best source of information and bringing in inaccuracies? Who best knows when RPoL was started? The coder. Who best knows the feature list? The coder.

To try a different tact; what parts of the article are questionable and require external references for fact-checking and accuracy? Easun (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coders are notoriously disfunctional when talking about their "children." Factual information years, dates, who - those are fine. Description of feature content is otherwise. The site even states the following: "The most common complaint is that the site is confusing, though we receive very few suggestions on how to rectify this." At least the first part of this statement is objective in my experience. The site also says that it can be completely arbitrary in their decisions. I found this statement to be objective, too. This would be the minimum warning that I would have placed at the start of the article. Though a reference to a moderator team would not be out of place.

Better yet would be a balanced review of the site. Rather than the entire article being a list of features, that information should be encompassed in one (short) paragraph. Another dedicated to its growth and leadership position in the field. A final paragraph should contain the warnings I have mentioned. That way the warnings are not so far down that no one sees them, but it's not the first thing one sees. Dcholtx (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I'd rather hear from an official Wiki person, not someone who's been reported for their contributions. -- Easun (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your reasoning. I should keep quiet and stop defending the article. Dcholtx (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly fails WP:V, WP:RS. (It's not like I'm anti-roleplay; Gygax talked me into becoming an RPG writer for Dragon, back in the day.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well to have these Wiki people to come in waving these WP:V and WP:RS flags in our face, however there's never any constructive input on what portions require fixing, or how a section of the web with no reliable or notable peer review system is supposed to achieve such a goal. -- Easun (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the main reliable RPG periodicals and websites provide at least some coverage to internet resources and popular RPG sites. It's a market covered by references that would be considered reliable under even a stricter interpretation of reliable sources. If other people haven't covered it yet, it is not our place to do so. Vassyana (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Magazine doesn't review websites. Wizards, White Wolf, et al don't mention anything but their own products (though RPoL is highly recommended in their forums). RPG.net reviews paper products, not websites. rpggateway.com is user submitted links. rpgopinions.com has reviews, but anyone can submit then (ergo fails being reliable or having a npov). indie-rpgs.com reviews independent game systems. freeroleplay.org deals with open-source game systems. therpgsite.com is like rpgopinions.com. enworld.org focuses on RPG systems, namely d20. The list goes on and I can't see any evidence of these "reliable RPG periodicals and websites" you allude to. If you know of valid places that could review RPoL then why not actually reference them, rather than this completely unhelpful "oh they're out there".

RPoL exists to give people the framework to RolePlay, which is to say to emote. Such sites don't have cold hard facts that can be referenced, merely peoples opinion on their experience on the site. Reviews and opinions are based on the POV of a single person, which no claim to neutrality can be made. Wikipedia clearly has no place for an article regarding something as visceral as RPoL. -- Easun (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPoL may be a wonderful website. However, Wikipedia articles about things like websites and businesses must be based on topics which have wide and independent coverage (of whatever PoV or slant). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is sad to see that people have put in time and effort to create such an article without knowing wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to improve this article, because I doubt that there ARE reliable sources that discuss the content. I also just did a quick check over |Alexca.com and I can see why there may be notability concerns. DigitalC (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even sadder to see that, in the couple of years that the article has been in place, and despite several contacts with Wikipedia admins, not one of them thought to bring any of this up any earlier. Or if they did, they were helpful about finding ways to fix the problems.

Regarding sources: a source is a location where people can go to check the authenticity and accuracy of an article. In that case, the link to RPoL counts as a source, since anybody can go there and actually see the real site for themselves, check that the features and figures are as mentioned in the article, and form their own opinion (as opposed to being told somebody else's). That is exactly the same as, for example, checking the sources for an article on astrophysics, where they would have to go to another site (or to a library), locate the cited material, read through it, and form their own opinion.

Your definition of sources may need to be looked at. Yes, a book, or other document can be a source, but so can the actual subject of the article, seen "in the flesh", as it were. --90.227.68.12 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for now. The content just doesnt satisfy any of the notability requirements. I would like to apologise, however (as others have commented) for nobody actually helping to improve this article's notability in the time it has been here. Ironholds 22:54, 31 May 2008 (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.