Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Stat dX

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 redirect to Guardians of Order. Disregarding BOZ as per usual. Content can be merged and/or redirect target can be changed, but there's agreement that we don't want a separate article about this. Sandstein 21:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-Stat dX[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 commercial product has been sourced for the last 15 years to the manufacturer's own website and a retail ecommerce site. A BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to unearth RS in reputable, mainstream, non-fiction media. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and Redirect to Big Eyes, Small Mouth - reviews definitely exist to satisfy NBOOK (and make no mistake, this is a book and not a generic "commercial product"). However, the generic version of the game system is of decidedly less interest than the anime version, Big Eyes, Small Mouth and also had the misfortune of being published near the end of the publisher's existence. Per WP:BEFORE C.4, the nominator should have considered a Merge, per WP:PRESERVE this is the policy-compliant course, and per WP:ENC the most notable game system using Tri-Stat rules is the most appropriate merge target. I invite the Nom to withdraw the nomination so we can get this done efficiently. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"reviews definitely exist" Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared Chetsford (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, for a Merge !Vote no such evidence is required, but here is one RS SPS review anyway; I have previously established the credentials of this ~~review~~publisher of reviews, an expert on gaming who has published for The Scotsman. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) corrected Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fan blog "geeknative.com" is not RS. The author is "Guest Reviewer". I can find no credentials for "Guest Reviewer" that would make him qualify as SPS. (In general, for an encyclopedia, we imagine RS to be things like books from Routledge or Springer, the New York Times or NPR, Journal of Sociology, etc. Whens sources like supergamefan.net or geeksuperstargamerz.blogspot.com are called RS it invites a special level of scrutiny which, in this case, is not surmounted, I regret.) Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chetsford, you could be so much more helpful at AfD if you were to read and internalize WP:NBOOK rather than invoking personal values and feelings that conflict with WP policy. This is particularly true given your responsibilities as Admin. In this case - and regardless of reviews - a Merge is the policy-compliant option. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guardians of Order, the article on the publisher/developer that created the system. It would make more sense as the target than BESM, as the system was used in several of their other products outside of BESM. It is also already listed on that page as a "generic roleplaying system" that is listed as being related to, but not part of, the BESM line. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Guardians of Order per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 11 February 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.