Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip)

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. No further consensus since last relist (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip)

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

Long out of print adventure for long out of print RPG system. Fails the GNG going away (with the only extant review being from a magazine owned by the fellow who wrote the RPG system) and any other notability standard pertaining to RPG adventures. A redirect to the system would ordinarily be called for, but would fail WP:XY, given the odds someone doing a search for "grail quest" would be seeking mainstream Arthurian legendry instead Ravenswing 05:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to The Fantasy Trip. BOZ (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you like to put forth a policy-based rationale to advocate either? Ravenswing 13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG with multiple independent RS'es that discuss the topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourcing of the article meets GNG with independent references over three decades. Not sure what the nom is on about. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... the fact that the nom (who has seen far far too many airy assertions about the validity of sources at AfD) would like very much to see these sources for himself, and find out whether they do, indeed, provide the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, as well as ascertain whether they're actually reliable sources. Happily, my local library network's got one of the books, so we'll see. (Just out of curiosity, have you seen the sources yourself?) Ravenswing 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that the fact you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right? WP:SOURCEACCESS applies, as does WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve the sources being added are legitimate and properly characterized, which in that case would be a bigger editor conduct issue than anything else... Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll reiterate: I've seen far too claims that sources meet the requirements of the GNG when they did nothing of the sort to just say "Oooh, sources!" and walk on. Did you yourself review those sources before voting Keep? Of course you must have, and I welcome you bringing me up to speed on in what detail they cover the subject. Ravenswing 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing I don't have a 1980 run of Space Gamer but I know what it's likely to say; I've read Schick before and own Appelcline. Anyway, you are illicitly reversing the onus about sources, presumably out of some kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Please don't bring that to AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ You would, then, have no problem with restating exactly what Appelcline says about the subject, then, would you? Ravenswing 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appelcline notes the publication of Grail Quest as part of Metagaming's initial push to support The Fantasy Trip under the leadership of Guy McLimore, who became line editor.

I will admit that Grail Quest receives less ink than Treasure of the Silver Dragon, but that is because of its real-world treasure hunt tie-in, not their relative importance to RPG publishing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their "relative importance" isn't something the GNG takes into consideration, as I'm sure you know. It's coverage. Are we talking several paragraphs about Grail Quest here, or are we talking something like "Among McLimore's credits are X, Y, Grail Quest and Z" ... ? The Space Gamer review doesn't satisfy the GNG; we're talking a magazine published just a few months before by the company that produced it, and one owned by the company which at the time was seeking to buy the game system. Right now, these assumptions that the subject meets the GNG rise and fall on just these two cites. Ravenswing 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So ... my local library just put a copy of Schick into my hands, and it's a capsule encyclopedia of RPG products; there are thousands listed. Here's the sum total of the Grail Quest reference: "Solo scenario usable with TFT, Melee, or Wizard. The PCs are Knights of the Round Table, searching the countryside for the Holy Grail. Digest-sized box, 32-pg book, counters, die, Metagaming, 1980."
This is as painfully inadequate a reference to meet the GNG as it would be to use the reference to support my notability (as it happens, I'm the listed author or co-author of several gamebooks and scenarios mentioned in the book). Would anyone care to proffer a reference for this product that actually meets the GNG? Ravenswing 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Ravenswing, that is a GNG-compliant reference. It is an independent source, and a long discussion is not required. Also, please note that the sourcing requirements for BLP articles (as your WP article would be, unless you are posting as a revenant) are considerably more strict than those for published works, especially for forms such as 1970s RPG products where the print references exist but can be difficult to acquire and/or verify. You seem to be applying unnecessarily strict, non-GNG compliant standards on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail," "* We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."

There is no way in creation (and certainly not as it is uniformly applied on Wikipedia)) that this represents "significant coverage," and there is nothing about 1980s RPG products that immunize them from the GNG's requirements. You'd be better off finding legitimate GNG-compliant sources than in incivilly throwing slurs to cover the lack. Are you then declining to present Appelcline's cite in full, while I'm thinking about it? Ravenswing 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the requirements of the GNG, which is intended to ensure that an adequate article can be written from reliable sources, including secondary sources, which is clearly the case here. The topic is directly and non-trivially engaged in multiple independent sources, which is the requirement.

I have summarized Appelcline's discussion of the topic and assessed its significance above, which is more than I am required to do. I am certainly not going to type it in as well, though others are free to do so. Per policy, though, GNG is certainly met. Newimpartial (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF Relisting. I see there is an active discussion here, feel free to close however if inappropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:26, 25 October 2017 (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.