Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medievia (2nd nomination)

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. The "keep" arguments do not really substantiate the sourcing of this topic. Sandstein 10:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medievia

[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)

All we have on this topic are four sentences from three listings. A search brought only primary and unreliable source material. Not enough to meet the significant coverage criteria of the GNG: We can't write an encyclopedia that does justice to the topic with this little information. The entire "controversy" section has no mention in reliable, secondary sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, since List of MUDs only accepts entries with their own articles. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article already cites three books, I also turned up this paper on google scholar in my first search. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Three books" = three mentions from listings in three books (listicles of the 1990s). That citation is the same story: A brief mention pulled from an undergrad thesis (Zen 2003). Can't write an article on this topic without delving into primary source original research, as in the material you restored to the article. czar 22:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrad theses occasionally get it right, one way we know when that happens is they get cited and quoted in a journal, which is what happened here. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad—wasn't a thesis but a 100-level course paper. czar 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tend to agree with MrOllie. The article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what claim, though? The book citations are cursory mentions and the only source with depth is the undergrad thesis. The bulk of the article text consists of primary sources and original research whose removal was reverted. czar 13:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brief mentions aren't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I have to agree with czar there's very little here to go on. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. Most coverage in reliable sources are just trival mentions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:49, 27 December 2019 (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.