Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy

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 in one way or another. Redirect or merge can be discussed separately, there is no clear consensus for either, just against deletion. So Why 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D6 Fantasy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial, otherwise merge to West End Games. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Sangrolu. BOZ (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(I'm spontaneously flashing back to Jennifer Anniston's scene in Office Space wherein she argues with her manager how many peices of "flair" is enough. Don't be that manager.) - Sangrolu (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to West End Games per WP:PRODUCT. Insufficient sources to demonstrste independent notsbility. Jbh ^Talk 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two of the four references listed are to threads on forums. Going through AfDs today this is the second time I've seen someone in a gaming AfD say "But there's substantial coverage in a source that's not really used in this article" ... so, why isn't the content in this article based on that source and those like it rather than on web forum threads? - Scarpy (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-compliant !Vote, per WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-policy compliant article. IF the topic is notable why are half of the sources based on forum threads? If a topic is notable, writing a stub summary using the abundant sources with in-depth coverage should be trivially easy. Instead, I'm seeing a lot of politicking on the talk page which makes me think otherwise. - Scarpy (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but it my case I was reacting to a non-policy compliant nom. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Yeah I see a lot of people saying "multiple reliable sources" and other things like that -- show us the in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources and we don't have to waste time on this discussion. If this article survives the AfD, you still have an article based on forum threads rather than the WP:RS you're insisting is out there and it's likely to get nominated again for that reason. - Scarpy (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was not a SOURCESEXIST argument; it was an actual list of sources that meet NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to West End Games per WP:Product Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective merge to West End Games. Fails the product clause of WP:NCORP due to lack of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
week keep We've got two solid sources mentioned and without anyone indicating they don't count toward WP:N: Pyramid Volume 2 and Volume 2 of Designers and Dragons. That's enough for WP:N to be met. I'd be happier with a handful of other RS reviews. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: People keep arguing as if the reasons for deleting that the Nom stated don't exist. I did a simple google search and couldn't find anything besides west end games which doesn't work as a real source, the rule book or information about the rule book which could only be used minimally in this article, and websites where people are just having discussions and Q and A over the game. Frankly, Where are these numerous REAL AND USABLE sources that mention the game? Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to West End Games. It is claimed that there are "two solid sources". However, Pyramid Volume 2 is not used to reference anything in the article and no further information is provided to even be able to verify that it exists, let alone verify that it is reliable and in-depth. No author, publisher or ISBN. Unsurprisingly, can't find anything that looks like it on gbooks. Designers & Dragons is used to reference only one sentence in the article that gives little more than the publication dates of the books. If that is all that is in that source then it is not in-depth coverage and so does not rise to showing notability. And that's putting aside the questions raised about the RS credentials of the source. Everything else is definitely not RS or not independent. I mght be persuaded if someone with access to those two sources could enumerate exactly how much coverage of the subject is in them (like in number of words or number of pages). But from what I can see here it's pretty minimal. SpinningSpark 22:19, 9 September 2018 (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.