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. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable RPG publishing company; fails WP:CORP. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 12:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I originally put up the prod tag which read "Non notable publisher. Amazon knows one book that was published by them. Does not come close to meeting WP:CORP." I stand by those comments. The prod was removed by Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) who claims that this company published books in the 80's which are now out of print. This, as far as I can tell, is utterly unverified. Even if that is true, these books were not significant enough for them to leave any sort of trace today on the web. Pascal.Tesson 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extra comment while I'm at it, let me shamelessly plug the WP:BK proposal. None of the books they published in the 80s (if any exist!) come close to meeting the criteria of that proposed guideline. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I don't care whether this is kept or not. Apotheosis Publishing's only claim to fame is that they own Spellbinder Games, a very popular book with a newsworthy history in the game industry. Thats it. I vote that it be rolled into the Spellbinder Games entry, which should be kept. I only gave it its own entry for completeness. I don't know that much about the company so I can't really add anything to the discussion.--Cryogenesis 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Robbstrd 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadly cryogenesis is alone in his opinions on Apotheosis, Spellbinder and Dreadmire. If they had some level of identity seperate from Randy it would be worth exploring further but they do not. All three are linked, remove one and the rest fall.Quode 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ironically I came to this debate because I was going to start a Wikipedia entry for Dreadmire. I don't know why people want to trash the book because of some petty jihad against the author. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Dreadmire is one of the best d20 books I've ever read. Sorry to be a spoil sport.--68.11.44.88 23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above user, like User:68.222.23.153, is likely another sockpuppet of Randy Richards/Cryogenesis.--Robbstrd 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't sock puppets all have the SAME IP address??? Different IP addresses could indicate possible meat puppets which, ironically, is what user Robbstrd is. Or they could be - egads - fans of the company and its books.--Cryogenesis 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not necessarily. As for meatpuppetry, I'm working at the behest of no one, Randy.--Robbstrd 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per pascal. Arbusto 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable publisher that has published only a single book. That book was judged as non-notable by a previous (and lengthy) AFD, and its article was deleted. Same sock-puppets showing up on that AFD, as well as the one for Spellbinder Games, and the same person (Cryogenesis) accusing long-standing Wikipedians with very long edit histories of being meat puppets. Crazy. Fairsing 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, I guess its just an amazing coincidence that Fairsing belongs to the "Greyhawk Wiki Project", just like Robbstrd, and that Quode is a known cohort of Robbstrd, who in turn is also a self-proclaimed hater of the author of the Dreadmire book. No, there are no meat puppets here. Its all just a coincidence. These are not the drones you want. Move along.
• Comment Also, AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus your AfD reference has no bearing.--Cryogenesis 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: publishers of non-notable books aren't notable --Pak21 09:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is relevant discussion at Necromancer Games, a publishing company of similar in size and scope to Spellbinder Games. Many of the people voting here "delete" are voting "keep" there, indicating the bias of this group. Spellbinder Games/Apotheosis Publishing has four books published (one recently) and two books coming out with 6 months. Necromancer Games has four books.--Cryogenesis 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus this has no bearing. Beyond this, Necromancer games has 37 books, so your claim is simply inaccurate.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The other books were actually developed by other companies and then later released (under license) by Necromancer Games. Not the same thing as publishing your own books. "Necromancer Games has only published four books" is a true statement.--Cryogenesis 15:50, 24 October 2006 (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.