Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Buffalo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 9 October 2013

Flying Buffalo

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

No indication of notability. Relies entirely on self-published sources. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have a book with an entire chapter on this company. I will try to start sourcing the article tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the only major shortcoming I see with the article is the reliance on self-published sources. Your contributions would be worthwhile. Kaszeta (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started on it, but don't have the time to finish up today - should be enough to see where I am going with it, since the chapter on Flying Buffalo is 8-pages long, and now we have sources for a bunch of awards and other things. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Google search shows plenty of coverage in reliable sources going back over four decades. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for so many reasons that this should be a Procedural Keep. Web Warlock (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has won 20 Origins wards in the last 40 years. Plenty reason to Keep. Web Warlock (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article contains numerous indications of notability. See WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but the subject matter is clearly notable in the world of gaming. Kaszeta (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company produced the 2nd Role-Playing Game (1st if you're in Europe), has won multiple awards and still has a strong fanbase. It's ludicrous that this article should be deleted. So it's self-published - as far as I'm concerned, it earned the right to be on this wiki decades ago (as of this writing FBI is ramping up to produce Deluxe Tunnels and Trolls, the 8th Edition of that venerable game). • SmokestackJones (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games|list of Games-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Keep''' - This company produced the 2nd Role-Playing Game (1st if you're in Europe), has won multiple awards and still has a strong fanbase.  It's ludicrous that this article should be deleted.  So it's self-published - as far as I'm concerned, it earned the right to be on this wiki decades ago (as of this writing FBI is ramping up to produce Deluxe Tunnels and Trolls, the 8th Edition of that venerable game).  [[User:SmokestackJones|• SmokestackJones]] ([[User talk:SmokestackJones|talk]]) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)