Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventures in Middle-earth

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. Merger can be discussed on talk page if necessary. So Why 18:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in Middle-earth[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)

Article on a puzzle and game book is sourced to amazon.com and the publisher's website. BEFORE fails to find any RS mentions. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOK. Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Cubicle 7. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This game won this year's Origins Award for Best Role-Playing Game[1]. I think that affirms my "Keep". BOZ (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found reliably sourced independent reviews (from publications with editorial oversight) at tabletopgaming.co.uk and gamingtrend.com - that's enough to satisfy NBOOK and GNG. If someone with more time would work them into the article, that would be great. Newimpartial (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the Origins Award for Best RPG [2] this ought to be speedy keep. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Newimpartial:, please post the links you are referring to here. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked nicely, O High King: [3] and [4]. If the nom had asked I would not have included them, because he is rude and there is no obligation to post links - I am not that much better at Google than other people. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If the nom had asked I would not have included them, because he is rude and there is no obligation to post links" I'm sorry that I upset you, but I appreciate you providing these links which will help inform the !votes of other editors. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be multiple independent reviews that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Meets NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cubicle 7 per WP:PRODUCT. Article is sourced entirely to forum posts (many dead-link) and game material. Does not establish independent notability per GNG. Jbh ^Talk 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per policy, AfD is to be guided by the sources proven to exist, not only the ones cited in the article. Nevertheless, I have added the 2018 Origins Award and the two RS reviews I noted above into the actual article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources? I see 4 dead links; 3 citations to Cubicle 7's web site; an award mention without commentary; and one review which may or may not be RS – I'll assume it is. This is not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Jbh ^Talk 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ill fix the dead review link I put in, but why wouldn't the Origins Award link contribute to Notability? It is one of the most prestigious, if not the most prestigious, award in the field. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may contribute but I do not see it as being enough to satisfy notability criteria in and of itself. I always have notability concerns about niche topics which do not either have some coverage outside of their niche or very significant coverage in it. Just about every RPG is going to get a couple of industry reviews and I tend to count such as 'trade press' per NORG ie the weight re notability is deeply discounted. I would be much happier to see an article or review which discussed the Origin Award ie an indication that the industry saw it worthy of commentary rather than mere mention. Jbh ^Talk 21:00, 20 August 2018 (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.