Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPGQuest

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGQuest

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

appears to be a self published board game. article was created by a spa account. the creater of the games article was also created by a spa account which has the "publisher's" name in its username. no evidence of notability that I can find other then author owned sites. "official site" appears to belong to author of articles. Tracer9999 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also per WP:SOAPS. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article is also a stub, and does not follow any Wikipedia's criteria/style to be an article, so unless it gets formated, and expanded, it is going to get deleted. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly lacks depth to be an article. There appears to have been a failure in the wikipedia bots as portuguese wiki has a page [1]. The problem is that some wikipedia don't bother in sorting out references for games.

comment I think this game has some features that probably have some novelty. There is mentioned in the portugese article that it was covered by a magazine. I suspect that there are quite a number of sources in portuguese to find. I think that there will be mentions in RS, i.e. presumed sources what I am not sure about is whether they will have the content to prove notability.Tetron76 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 2011 (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.