Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daredevils (role-playing game)

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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevils (role-playing game)[edit]

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

~~Fails GNG and WP:RPG notability. No RS available (no independent notability). Consider merging into parent. PROD removed. czar · · 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw based on similar Aftermath! and Bushido snow keep AfDs and corresponding community interest in/support for the article. Despite some sources that I still deem to be of questionable notability, I think the article's sourcing has been satisfactorily improved to pass GNG. Thanks to all for their civility, patience, and effort. czar · · 17:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Withdraw and for the additional edits you have made to the article. Web Warlock (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in White Dwarf #55, Page 13. Dragon Magazine #70, page 73. I'll ignore the ones online written in the past 10 years. Please take into account this game predates the internet by about 20 years. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar conversations in Aftermath's and Bushido's AfDs. My case is that two reviews are not enough to establish notability. czar · · 20:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Given the reviews I supplied above, article meets all the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. I am not sure why you are having a problem with that. I am supplying exact magazine names, issues, and page numbers of review. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews isn't enough to establish notability for this topic. There's no evidence that this topic will ever have broader coverage than a summary (WP:IINFO). I already made my point on this and the other AfDs so I'll bow out now and let it take its course. czar · · 21:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known RPG from the early years of RPGs, predating the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are being added, Nominator violated community standards by not attempting to discuss potential changes after tagging the articles for improvement. Plenty of independent sources. Web Warlock (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, there is only one ref in the article. Where are the independent sources? Is there currently anything in the article that attempts to assert notability? Also please link to the community standards that you've accused me of violating. czar · · 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real research takes time. I have a lot of magazines to go through. It takes no effort to tag an article. Web Warlock (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nom fails to take into account both lack of online sources when dealing with RPGs and the nature of the hobby in the early 1980s. There were a handful of major magazines (Dragon and White Dwarf have already been mentioned) doing reviews, and NO internet resources. Copyright keeps most of those early reviews off the internet today. Other review magazines may have been short-lived. As Webwarlock notes, it's easy to tag. Intothat darkness 14:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based in part on discussion above, and in part on the SnowKeep given to the other two games in this series. Intothat darkness 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note White Dwarf review added to article. Still looking for what box my Dragon mag is in. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon #70? I will check when I get home tonight. Web Warlock (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dragon #70 and Imagine #9. There might be more in Imagine #4, but that is one of the issues I don't have. Web Warlock (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at five completely independent, third party sources that establish the notability of this topic. Web Warlock (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six. And I have more magazines to go through. Web Warlock (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (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.