Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lennus II

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 merge to Paladin's Quest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lennus II[edit]

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

Very straightforward: Article subject lacks coverage in notable/reliable sources. WP:PROD was contested by an editor with an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the term "significant commentary"; the article he refers to as "significant commentary" is a review of a compilation album which briefly mentions that one of the songs originates from Lennus II. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how to respond to that; literally the entire article is a retrospective on Lennus II: [1]
Additionally: I'm not sure that it's been established that there is are clear criteria for notability for video game articles. I may very well be wrong, but it seems to me that the guide linked to earlier explicitly states that it's not official WP policy. This isn't my subject area, but it seems to me that any game given a full cartridge release for a major video game console ought to be considered "notable." I certainly don't see any benefit to deleting an entry like this.
Finally, even a cursory search brings up plenty of other coverage from reputable sites and wikis: [2] [3] [4]
Korossyl (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TVTropes and TCRF are not reliable. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The articles in RPGamer and HCG101 fit the bill but that isn't a great number. --Izno (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:NGAMES is not policy does not mean that video game-related articles do not need to meet notability requirements. Among other things, WP:GNG still applies. Also, Korossyl, you should have taken a more careful look at the article, because the RPGamer page you link here is not the one linked in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I've been looking at WP:NOT too, but it seemed like a pretty good fit for Lennus II.

Re: being "more careful:" there is literally no other RPGamer page linked anywhere in the article other than the one I linked here. Korossyl (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: we should now wrap up if there's consensus on the Izno's merge proposal, below.Korossyl (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs run 7 days unless it's WP:SNOWing. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks -- this is my first AfD. Korossyl (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think after having his mistake pointed out, Korossyl would have bothered to check the article. Just for the record, here's the RPGfan page which is linked in the article: [5].--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a condescending comment. Please re-read the discussion. I have been talking about an RPGamer article, the sole entry in the Lennus II "external links" section. You also mentioned RPGamer by name in your March 17 comment. There has been no previous mention of RPGfan. Korossyl (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the end, what have you got: That Martin III mixed up RPGamer and RPGfan? (Honestly, I find your misuse of the word "literally" far more embarrassing.) If you'd checked the article as he suggested, his mistake would have been obvious, especially since he described the page's contents for you. Unless, that is, you were dragging out this silly exchange with the express intent of making Martin III look bad. Either way, you're not in much position to complain about condescension. Now drop it, both of you.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping it as suggested, but I just wanted to own up that yeah, whatever Korossyl or I actually typed in this discussion, I was consistently thinking "RPGfan". I'm honestly a bit flabbergasted at myself, because I am well aware both that RPGfan and RPGamer are different sites and that there is constant risk of mixing the two of them up, so I don't know how I carried things on this long without realizing my mistake. Apologies to all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever else, the merge proposal has come out of this discussion, which is a great way to improve two articles, so I'm thankful to everyone involved. Korossyl (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to RPG and HCG, Gamasutra, Siliconera, IGN, and HCG again all have mentions. My inclination is a merge to Paladin's Quest. --Izno (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that even two sources should satisfy the requirements. That aside, thanks for the additional links! I could support a merge. The reason I created this article is because I went looking for info on the game and was surprised not to find any; I just want to the info to remain, in one form or another. Korossyl (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Paladin's Quest - not enough RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paladin's Quest, since it's the original game... though I have to say that article looks like it's not immune to AfD itself.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig up some sourcing for Paladin's Quest when I get a moment. Given its release date, it must have a review in GamePro at the absolute least.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:17, 22 March 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.