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 Delete due to insufficient reliable sources (i.e. only one, which hasn't been verified yet either). Fram (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dice Tower[edit]

The Dice Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements: Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, won a well-known and independent award, or distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Article has been tagged requiring notability since April 2007. References are primary sources or un-verifiable sources such as forum posts. Breno ^talk 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, might be a quality xcast, but 2500 viewers per episode doesn't exactly scream "Notable!". Lankiveil (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• 2,500 listeners source reference comes from the Dice Tower forum. They could say any number; but it couldn't be proven. --Breno ^talk 08:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, among other things (which I'm still researching! Please don't decide this any time soon!), The Dice Tower is the longest-lasting (112 episodes so far and going strong), most regular and most respected audio podcast covering the world of boardgaming. In addition it provides listeners with wonderful multi-cultural insights. I am checking on awards and publications now, and will provide that information within a few days. Thank you. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just added a citation from Knucklebones (magazine). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Split — I have questions about notability, but there are a lot of references. The formatting of the references need to be fixed, especially the one that initially looks like a self-reference (it's titled like it's a like to the Dice Tower Wikipedia article). I'll keep checking in and may change my opinion later. Val42 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteYes there are lots of references, problem is some are forums and blogs which aren't reliable, also some of them are simply pointing to a company which has used a favourable review by the host as advertising. They're not significant coverage of the subject itself. Honestly I question their relevance to the article. I've removed the sources which fail WP:V from the article. I don't see significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources independent of the subject. Boardgamegeeks seems to have some sort of relationship to it which makes the only source the knucklebones article which hasn't had the text linked in any manner.--Crossmr (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources, clearly fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If its adequately notable could you provide the references which shows it meets WP:WEB?--Crossmr (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Others are doing this work, as noted above, while I already do more than my share of fixing other articles here. I listened to the podcast and am satisfied as to its bona fides and notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely nothing in the podcast that would establish its notability. Notability can only be established by sources independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But listening to the podcast allowed me to determine the likelihood that more sources could be found. And as I consider it sufficiently likely, my opinion remains that the article should be kept per WP:DGFA: When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have to agree this sounds like a clear case of ILIKEIT. This is a debate for deletion. If you really feel the citations are out there you need to provide them. The article is up for deletion because of the lack of citations which would meet the requirements. The opinion has been submitted that those citations don't exist and simply stating "I think they do" doesn't make any kind of compelling case.--Crossmr (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't actually like it all that much. But I have long experience in this field and know a notable product when I see it. The trouble is that sources will either be web sites (which you would pooh-pooh) or hobby magazines, which are a chore to wade through. Since others are looking for such sources and seem to be having reasonable success in finding them, I am leaving it to them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hmm WP:ILIKEIT. --Breno ^talk 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's your spin. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not spin. A comment such as I listened to the podcast and am satisfied as to its bona fides and notability goes against varifiability requirements. Notability on Wikipedia is based on independent secondary sources, not listening to the show and saying it satisfies notability. --Breno ^talk 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not required to create a perfect article in the course of this discussion. What we are doing is assessing the balance of probabilities that the article is capable of reaching a satisfactory level. My point is that, having looked at the article and sampled the product, I have some confidence that more sources can be found. If I had to do it myself, I know how I'd go about it but I'd have to take some time and spend some money. You don't get to hustle me into doing that right away. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a boardgame fan, this is a tough choice, but frankly it doesn't pass WP:WEB and the sourcing is painfully inadequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 01:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep from WP:WEB: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". BGN is respected and independent of the creators. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The podcast seems to be hosted on BGN, as they use their forums, etc. This isn't a case of distribution and no longer makes it independent of the podcast.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The podcast is no longer distributed through BGN but has transferred to Boardgame Geek, I gather. The transfer indicates that the podcast is a production which is independent of those sites. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From looking around Boardgame Geek I don't see anything more than a community site. On this article's references from this site (refs 3 and 6) these are forum pages. Due to the inherent unreliable nature of user-generated content, this would not pass as a respected medium. --Breno ^talk 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BGG is well-respected in the designer board game community; the recent Knucklebones article described "having your game climb the BGG rankings" as the main aspiration of a game designer, so either way, I still think that part of WP:WEB applies here. Also, if user-generated content is inherently not respectable, we might as well give up on all of wikipedia. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ...and since funagain does the actual hosting, both BGN and BGG are definitely independent of it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because someone else does the hosting doesn't mean that another party is truly independent of it. If the new yorker carries your column its one thing. If they give you an office, an email address, a company car, and still try to call you freelance, that's another thing. Also yes, user generated content is not considered verifiable on wikipedia. Its self-published, which fails WP:V except in a few rare cases.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yeah, but since The Dice Tower is featured on both Board Game News and in a Knucklebones article, that seems to qualify as multiple independent sources. It appears to me that there is clearly NOT consensus for deletion.

• The Knucklebones article is a hardcopy reference, and while perfectly valid on Wikipedia, does not give editors without physical access to the magazine a chance to review it or even know if the article exists. As for claiming Board Game News as an independent secondary source it is clearly not, as each article ends with Posted by Tom Vasel: one of the hosts of the show. The opening line Hello from the Dice Tower! is also a giveaway. Please don't speculate on concensus of discussion, as we should leave that decision to an administrator. Thanks. --Breno ^talk 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My bad about the Board Game News. I guess I didn't scroll down to the end of the article. I know that BGN itself is separate from TDT. As for the consensus, I'm not speculating. When half the respondants say "delete" and half say "keep", there is clearly no consensus. I'm not talking about what the administrator might decide, I'm talking about actual consensus, which is clearly absent. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm reviewing the article references today to ensure we have WP:RS independent, reliable secondary sources for WP:V verifiability, and therefore pass WP:WEB notability requirements. The Knucklebones article I'm not able to confirm (anyone who knows where an online version of March 2008, p. 28 please let me know). As I mentioned above Board Game Geek articles [1] are written by one of the show hosts. Fun Again Games [2] is where they host their RSS feed [3] and the page is a html render of their show feed. Board Game Geek Guild [4] is a fan forum site managed by one of the show hosts. Gift Trap [5] is one of the show hosts reviewing their site "Here’s what Tom has to say about GiftTRAP". Cineplexity [6] is again a review from a show host about a different site. Finally, back to Board Game Geek forums [7] thread. Apart from the Knucklebones article, which as I said me personally is not able to confirm, the other references listed do not stand as indepentent, relable sources. As verifiability policy states: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

If criterion 1 is being claimed of WP:WEB The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself the only reliable source may be the Knucklebones hardcopy article. Even then this would not meet the requirement that multiple works are published.

If criterion 3 is being claimed The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators ... an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution... Footnote 7 of WEB gives an example of this use, being The Ricky Gervais Show podcast being distributed by The Guardian British national newspaper. This criterion was not designed for websites who merely clone an RSS feed to be considered as an independent distributor. Otherwise Podshow, Indiepodder, and Feedburner would always be cited as an indepentent distributor for every show out there.

I still stand behind my nomination that this article does not meet verifiability policy nor notability guidelines. --Breno ^talk 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - TDT Host Tom Vasel has apparently won the "Platinum Pawn Award" for best game reviewer. Yes, I realize the Platinum Pawn may not be on the level of the Grammys or the Academy Awards, and the award is to Vasel and not the podcast itself, but since Vasel's reviews are a major part of The Dice Tower, I'd say this is another brick in the notability wall. Also, just do a web search on The Dice Tower sometime. Sort through the 20,000 results and discount the ones for dice rolling devices, and the unique results for the podcast itself make an impressive list. Aside from the WEB criteria, TDT is notable because of the volume of buzz about it on the web. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that notability is not inhereted or transferred WP:ITSA. While the host of a show may be notable to have an article for himself, a show he produces must be notable on its own. I also don't believe in G-hits = Notability. There's just too many results that are unreliable, user generated, original research, or primary-sourced material. 20,000 results = 7 article references. I have already tried Google News and Scholar searches with no result. --Breno ^talk 09:23, 17 January 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.