This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Current vs. historical notability will be an issue for this article. Clearly Paizo, being the publisher of the official magazines for the world's most popular roleplaying game, was notable, and continues to be notable in that context. However, the fate of the company's current notability is questionable. I don't think that has any more impact on this article, however, then it does on dozens of companies which no longer have an significance, but clearly helped to shape their industry at the time. -Harmil 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? In addition to the company's history with Dragon and Dungeon, it also publishes Pathfinder, which warrants its own Wikipedia entry, as well as the Planet Stories line of fiction that is distributed in major bookstores and features some of the most prominent authors in science fiction. Paizo.com is likely the largest hobby retail store on the internet, and the company itself is remains one of the largest publishers in the RPG field. As an employee I am admittedly biased (which is why I refrain from editing this entry), but I think your criticisms are way off base.Iquander (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, does notability go away once established? I mean, if something highly significant happened in the 1950s, received coverage enough to establish what is considered notable enough for wikipedia, but little or nothing new happened since then and the event is rarely mentioned now, would its prior notability not still be retained for its historical significance? Or, to ask it another way about an article on a current or recent topic whose notability is well established right now; if wikipedia is still around decades from now, would we then go and delete articles on older subjects which have no significance beyond their historical reference? Harmil, you usually seem to vote "keep" on D&D related AFDs, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. BOZ (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions need to be backed up by reliable secondary sources; on their own, your POV is insufficient to establish notability under WP guidelines. Please restore the notability template that has been placed there to encourage this issue to be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No Gavin - the company published two internationally circulated national magazines. It's notable. By purposely ignoring statements provided above you are not helping your case. I have dug up sources on some other notes that you and Jack Merridew have placed and will try to find more but please stop this now. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I am trying to google some sources but it is insanely hard with all the rpg blogs/groups etc. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I think you are all misunderstanding the purpose of cleanup templates. Just because I have put one there, it does not mean that the topic is not notable: it means that there is an issue to be addressed, and the template is a way of flagging this on the article page. From where I stand, removing the template looks like censorship, which is counterproductive in this context; if more editors get involved with this article, I am sure the notability issues can be resolved. Please restore the template so that other editors will be alerted; you opinion that it is notable is insufficient. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have placed two sources from an independent source already. For thoroughness I will try to look for more later.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
For your information, listing in a directory is not classed as a reliable secondary source - see WP:CORP for details. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) - erm, could be a magazine too, it has a circulation and is a periodical.  cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'd argue that a magazine going defunct is not trivial, though it is indeed succinct.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not concerned whether the magazine is defunct or not; please restore the notability template until such time as reliable secondary sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The single secondary source there when you incorrectly tagged it was already found. More have been added. Please stop the disruptive tagging. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The press release that you refer to is not classed as a reliable secondary source. Note that there is nothing disruptive or incorrect about the cleanup templates that I added; if I had not persisted, nothing would have been added at all. Please feel free to add secondary sources, but ensure that you do so before you remove the templates, not after. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)