Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWRP

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. Sources found. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SWRP

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

Non-notable Internet community, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Coverage with further reliable sources to come in due course with further editing. I believe this article to be in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance policy. Please make every effort to Keep this article. Duffsam (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Duffsam (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Text would could possibly by interpreted as an advertisement has been removed Duffsam (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that there is no reliable sourcing that covers this subject directly (see this guideline). If there are reliable sources, then prove it by linking to them. Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two scholarly articles about the community: Living in the Hutt Space, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.006, in Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 28, Issue 5, September 2012, Pages 1681–1691; and, by the same author "The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world" doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.016 Computers in Human Behavior Volume 28, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 450–455. That they are by the same author makes it a bit weak. The community gets mentioned in other studies of Second Life (which is where it seems to take place) such as [1], and this book chapter [2], and there are others if you do a search in Google Scholar. Now, this scholarly information needs to be added to the article, and there should be links between the Second life article and this one. LaMona (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article provides no reliable sources, only a link to a Wikipedia page and the other to gaming pages, including the subject's own website.--Rpclod (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to establish subject as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS. Quis separabit? 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the delete !votes following the first relisting appear to be based upon the state of sourcing in the article, rather than the availability of sources (the first !vote following the relisting is certainly as such). Per WP:NRVE, the state of sourcing in articles does not automatically correspond with a topic being non-notable by default. More commentary is needed about the sources that are available. To facilitate this, the following are links to the two journal articles denoted in LaMona's !vote above: "Living in the Hutt Space: Immersive process in the Star Wars Role-Play community of Second Life", "The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the abstracts actually mentions the subject. Assuming the other actually mentions the subject (I don't have a subscription), there are only two articles from the same author in the same year in a journal that does not have a Wikipedia article itself. That does not seem to be sufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a source review, the overall topic meets WP:N (source examples below). I recommend renaming the article to Star Wars role play and copy editing as necessary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Living in the Hutt Space: Immersive process in the Star Wars Role-Play community of Second Life". Pages 1681–1691.
"The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world". Pages 450–455.
Literary Art in Digital Performance: Case Studies in New Media Art and Criticism. Pages 110, 113-116.

Withdraw per sources found, however WP:SK#1 doesn't apply due to outstanding delete !votes. Esquivalience ^t 20:37, 29 May 2015 (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.