Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forgotten Realms Atlas (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 keep. WP:RS are present and also per WP:PRESERVE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Realms Atlas[edit]

[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)

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please improve your copy-paste nomination~(if this is done, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). "No meaning" is not a valid deletion rationale. The article cites one source (so not a few), and it is a book (not a "fan source"). Frankly, this article may fail GNG but the current rationale is just so bad the nominator needs a friendly warning to learn how to submit AfD articles and how to write proper rationales. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what needs to improve is the use of discernment in creating articles. Not every published guide book related to D&D is notable, and the sourcing here is clearly below notability. The last thing we need is mindless proceduralism backing up these sub-standard articles that add nothing to the encyclopedia overall and bloat it with sub-standard articles that reflect poorly on the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Pburka or merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must be hard finding a book source outside the book itself. Only one source seems to mention the book and is used several times without other refernces.Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the author's page. The book is discussed along with some of the author's other work here, here and here. It's also discussed briefly here. Note that there are dozen's of role playing books of mixed notability and the same vague cookie-cutter rationale at PROD right now. pburka (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources User:Pburka found which need to be added to the article. Additionally, the article does not go into heavy game mechanic details (so it's not a WP:GAMEGUIDE situation). I've said this in another AfD & on the nominator's talk page, but in the future, please take the time to review an article's sources & then (if you think it has failed notability, etc) customize your PROD/AfD nomination for the article at hand. For example, in this situation your nomination should have highlighted that it cites exactly 1 source (not "a few fan sources"). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how any of the points of WP:GAMEGUIDE applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? One source is present in the article, several more have been found (thanks!), so this is worth preserving and expanding. Daranios (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Given the experience in other AfDs, I would like to emphasize that Women in American Cartography: An Invisible Social History does not only mention the Atlas on p. 48, but then, continuing into the next page, gives more details about the author's maps which applies to The Forgotten Realms Atlas. Give the discussion about Gender bias on Wikipedia we should have very good reasons before deleting an article which has a, how ever minor, relation to women's social history. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games and Women in American Cartography: An Invisible Social History are good sources that demonstrate notability. The Cartography book only talks about Fonstad for three paragraphs, and it's about the atlases as a whole as opposed to specifically about the Forgotten Realms version, but there's material there that could be used to expand the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (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.