Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- D6 Fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on a toy or game is sourced entirely to the manufacturer's (West End Games) own website. Google Books returns only one RS (Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing). No results from JSTOR, Google News, or newspapers.com. Fails the General Notability Guidelines due to absence of WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
* Speedy keep multiply-reviewed, widely distributed game referred to in multiple reliable sources. Has anyone heard of BEFORE? This is getting ridiculous - placing multiple ungrounded AfD nominations in quick succession has been grounds for previous ANI filings. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep !vote addendum There is significant coverage in Pyramid Volume 2, which is paywalled but was professionally published with editorial oversight, independly of WEG, and is a paradigmatic RS. That and the significant coverage in Volume 2 of Designers and Dragons is sufficient to meet NBOOK and the GNG. Let's put this one to bed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- referred to in multiple reliable sources Which ones? If your Keep rationale is that sources exist, you need to tell us what they are. Also, if you want to file an ANI, you need to file it, not make ominous threats. It's disruptive to this discussion which is focused on the suitability of a specific article for WP. In a different AFD you indicated you understood this [1] so I'm not certain what the continuing issue is. Chetsford (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are submitting classes of articles for deletion that are consistently closed as keep over time, and are dismissing classes of sources that are routinely accepted as reliable in AfD discussions. You show ignorance of such guidelines as WP:NBOOK and WP:CREATIVE, and refuse to use the term Fanzine according to its understood meaning. Apparently you believe that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [2]. In short, you don't know what you are doing, and should stop before you waste the time of yet more editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- The quickest way to avoid wasting the time of editors is to provide the names and publication dates of the "multiple reliable sources" you have said this is referenced in. Simply insisting sources exist while refusing to identify them is a bit unconventional for AFD discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are submitting classes of articles for deletion that are consistently closed as keep over time, and are dismissing classes of sources that are routinely accepted as reliable in AfD discussions. You show ignorance of such guidelines as WP:NBOOK and WP:CREATIVE, and refuse to use the term Fanzine according to its understood meaning. Apparently you believe that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [2]. In short, you don't know what you are doing, and should stop before you waste the time of yet more editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is extremely rare for an article to pass GNG at AFD when only two sources can be found in which the subject is mentioned (setting aside, for a moment, the quality of the sources in question). Further, since this is not in fact an article on a book, but rather one on a "game system" composed of multiple bound instructional manuals each sold separately, I don't believe a logical reading of NBOOK would permit the bare minimum two sources to establish inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Don't move the goal posts, Chet. There are not "only two sources where the subject is mentioned" - there are very many. I picked two that are significant, independent, reliable and uncontroversial as sources for RPG articles. And RPG articles, and book articles, and film director articles ... are routinely kept on the basis of two reliable, independent sources...which you would know if your first foray into RPGs wasn't cluelessky nominating a dozen for deletion, but had instead - I don't know - actually read some deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Newimpartial, otherwise merge to West End Games. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - multiple reliable sources, meets GNG. Re: Chetsford, it's not IME "extremely rare" to pass AFD with only 2 reliable sources, but that claim sounds like you are trying to intimidate the other editors, not make your case. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)