Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design (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 merge to Ernest W. Adams. Merge/redirect; as the redirect comments seem to be thinking of keeping the little content there is over on the Ernest W. Adams article Courcelles 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. It survived an AfD back in 2005, but I feel it does not meet the notability criteria. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Previous AfD "keep" arguments are very unconvincing and do not address GNG at all. The authors are notable, yes; the book is popular, yes; I've even personally used it and cited it. But that doesn't make it automatically notable for a Wikipedia article. There is one Gamasutra review, and that counts as a great GNG source (and pretty much assures an entry in any "list of ... books" article it might belong in). Unfortunately, everything else I can find are just catalog/directory/store entries and a few unreliable reviews/descriptions. The review in the article doesn't appear to be a reliable source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ernest Adams, as notable (not GNG notable, but real world) work he wrote. Any details on the book can be summarized there nicely without worrying about the book's notability. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect same thinking as MASEM. Given the stub for 8 years, full info can be merged to the author article with nothing lost. If more reviews are found to justify a standalone article recreate as needed. -- GreenC 07:10, 24 December 2013 (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.