Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagmar

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagmar

Appears to be non-notable role-playing game. Only references are in Portuguese, but are to the game's sites. Can't see evidence of third-party references. The ghits for Tagar seem to mostly be player names in other RPGs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first Brazilian RPG would make them notable if there was proof. Right now it looks like a typical 13 in a dozen game. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See the section GSA Editora on this page. While I wouldn't necessarily trust this site, it does claim that Tagmar was at least created by the first Brazilian RPG-making company. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources stabilish verifiable Notability. Tosqueira (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think. [1] looks minor, but seem to be a RS. [2] is even more of a passing mention. [3] could be quite solid, but I'm not sure. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is still too trivial. Does not seem to have enough coverage from reliable independent sources to stabilish notability. Tosqueira (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help out with the last source? It looks like a chapter in a book that covers Portuguese RPGs, but I really can't tell. In any case, the coverage in the first source is boarder-line enough given the things found above (IMO of course). Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is trivial. The last source is not a book about RPGs, it seems to be an academic essay (WP:OR) about RPGs published in some proceedings. Per WP:N still does not have enough coverage from WP:IS WP:RS. Tosqueira (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An academic essay would be fair game. WP:OR simply prevents us from adding our own original research. Zagalejo^^^ 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and sourcing. Trivial coverage in Portgugese sources will not allow us to construct a good encyclopedia article. Fletcher (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2008 (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.