646:
us be civil about it, q.v. "instruction manuals", "messages in bottles", "Are there any RS for this product?" after asking for and receiving page references in
Designers & Dragons, etc., not to mention your quite unCIVIL "exercise in obfuscation" comment. Let us indeed be CIVIL. 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
448:. With all due respect, you do - in fact - have to provide evidence that coverage exists, not just claim it exists. It can become exhausting for all involved to have to pry this information out of you. I don't mean to be annoying in continuing to remind you of the need to demonstrate sources, but since
594:
No, Chetsford. For self-published sources, the venue is not what matters (and boardgamegeek is a respected venue). What matters in this case is the credentials of the reviewer - is it written by a recognized professional in the field. Which MJ Harnish is, which is why I posted his Wired CV above. Do
645:
I do not doubt either your "intelligence" or your literacy, Chetsford. I do doubt your willingness to read either the subjects of the RPG articles or our sources about them, which is one of the factors that discourages me from responding generously to your requests for sources. But by all means, let
606:
are "instruction manuals" to which NBOOK does not apply. There are literally hundreds of AfDs resolved along contrary lines. Before presuming that your own word is dogma, may I suggest that you try an RfC? (Though given how you are consistently ignoring the clear consensus of your own RSN query on
557:
Also,please don't be disingenuous. Designers & Dragons is a reliable source on this game, per your own RSN investigation on the subject, and the multiple citations of the game for its influence, as I noted above, and which you have seemngly failed to read, alleviate any concerns about "trivial
631:- You have been previously asked by others to not use AfDs as a platform to launch into personal attacks against the intelligence of editors and have repeatedly pledged to stop doing so. I'd kindly ask you continue the good work you've demonstrated recently in calibrating your responses. Thanks.
806:
There is no such requirement but I was saying that if an academic publisher has provided enough coverage then the subject is obviously notable in addition to multiple other reliable sources. To treat it as "mere proof that something exists" is underestimation like
Chetsford was doing.
554:, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" which is precisely the case here, as demonstrated above.
579:
the expertise of an expert must, itself, be established through RS declaring that person an expert. Merely asserting someone is an expert does not establish their expertise. And, as has been repeatedly stated by others, NBOOK does not apply to instruction or rules manuals.
253:
Fails GNG. For preceding 12 years article on a commercial product has had one non-RS source (something called "geekdo.com") which is now a dead link. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional sources.
329:- multiple reviews meet NBOOK, and WP:N is also met by multiple Indie RPG awards and multiple citations of its influence in Designers & Dragons, Volume 4. The current state of the reference is irrelevant; AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Spurious nom.
351:
in RS per our standard requirement that sources must be demonstrated, not just asserted? Also, I am unable to find an entry for this in "Designers & Dragons, Volume 4" - can you please provide a page number for verification?
222:
430:. There are of ourselves others, just as when you open up your dead tree edition of Designers & Dragons, Volume 4, there is an index at the back. Except for the blind, there isn't anything you "couldn't see".
444:
Aside from my inherent concerns that "boardgamegeek.com" meets the RS standards, the link you provided isn't a link to a review, nor does it mention the "Primetime
Adventures" game, it's a link to
505:. Anyway, it's become rather clear at this point this is another exercise in obfuscation and, I'm afraid, I don't have time this week to treat it so I'll leave this AfD to you. Best of luck.
423:
370:
175:
271:
216:
522:. I trust you will find it easier to read than Designers & Dragons Volume 4, which in spite of everything you have written about it, you do not seem even to have opened.
290:
107:
550:
After opening the link, Chetsford, the best practice is actually to read the content. Here it is a self-published review by published expert MU Harnish. Per
480:, one of us is providing sources while the other seems unable or unwilling to read them. I'll let the closer here figure out which contribution is decisive.
122:
182:
792:
sourcing. Multiple, reliable sources are sufficient. And, note to
Chetsford, significant coverage from multiple sources has been demonstrated here.
148:
143:
453:
152:
760:
Per our guidelines, notability is established by significant coverage. Mere proof that something exists is not proof of that thing's notability.
135:
536:
That's a thread on a message forum. Forum threads, chat room logs, messages in bottles, etc. are not RS. Are there any RS for this product?
473:
Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review; the link before "at" gives the credentials of the author of the review.
610:
I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself before engaging in deletion domination, but that is clearly too much to ask for.
102:
95:
17:
237:
204:
728:
116:
112:
741:
71:
841:
40:
198:
816:
801:
783:
769:
751:
732:
714:
702:
658:
640:
619:
589:
570:
545:
531:
514:
468:
439:
417:
399:
382:
361:
338:
321:
301:
282:
263:
77:
194:
139:
724:
390:
The
Designers references are on pages 149, 179, 183, 254, and 290. Really, the indecx could be your friend.
244:
607:
Designers & Dragons, I suppose it is too much to hope that you would actually listen to the community).
797:
615:
566:
527:
485:
435:
395:
334:
837:
477:
36:
789:
520:
427:
812:
779:
747:
603:
131:
83:
576:
551:
765:
654:
636:
585:
541:
510:
464:
413:
378:
357:
259:
230:
210:
793:
611:
562:
523:
481:
431:
391:
330:
294:
275:
91:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
836:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
54:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
317:
808:
775:
743:
761:
650:
632:
581:
537:
506:
460:
409:
374:
353:
255:
774:
Notability is established when a academic publisher provides "significant coverage".
710:
59:
697:
per
Newimpartial in spirit and especially if more sources can be found, otherwise
169:
628:
624:
500:
491:
456:
405:
404:
Thanks, I'm not seeing it but - in any case - can you please provide evidence of
348:
449:
313:
561:
NBOOK is met, even without the Indie awards. Why not withdraw the nomination?
498:
312:
since no fresh source material has come to light since the article was posted.
52:. While there were some weak keep arguments, there were some good ones too.
459:
I sense that there is a reasonable need to underscore this point. Thanks.
706:
599:
495:
492:
Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review
422:
One of the professional and
Reliably Sourced reviews is that by
832:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
598:
And no, Chetsford, no-one except yourself has yet stated that
476:
And I would remind you that in this AfD and its parallel for
457:"you didn't provide sources when asked so NEXIST wasn't met"
629:"I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself"
503:
165:
161:
157:
229:
371:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
243:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
844:). No further edits should be made to this page.
369:Note: This discussion has been included in the
289:Note: This discussion has been included in the
270:Note: This discussion has been included in the
272:list of Television-related deletion discussions
8:
123:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
368:
291:list of Games-related deletion discussions
288:
269:
788:Um, dude, there is no requirement for
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
575:No, message boards are not RS. Per
347:Can you please provide evidence of
24:
408:in RS? Or was it just that one?
108:Introduction to deletion process
1:
446:"User Profile for MJ Harnish"
817:08:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
802:11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
784:10:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
770:18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
752:10:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
733:02:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
715:00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
659:20:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
641:20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
620:21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
590:17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
571:09:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
546:03:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
532:02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
515:01:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
469:00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
440:12:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
418:22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
400:22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
383:20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
362:20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
339:19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
322:01:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
302:17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
283:17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
264:17:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
78:01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
98:(AfD)? Read these primers!
861:
740:Notable role playing game.
703:List of role-playing games
834:Please do not modify it.
519:Link fixed above; it is
32:Please do not modify it.
649:That's better. Thanks.
494:- Here's a screenshot
96:Articles for deletion
725:FreeKnowledgeCreator
625:"Do try to keep up."
604:Primetime Adventures
132:Primetime Adventures
84:Primetime Adventures
55:(non-admin closure)
723:per Newimpartial.
478:The Mountain Witch
406:"multiple reviews"
349:"multiple reviews"
452:also told you in
385:
304:
285:
113:Guide to deletion
103:How to contribute
57:
852:
630:
626:
502:
493:
458:
407:
350:
299:
280:
248:
247:
233:
185:
173:
155:
93:
74:
68:
62:
53:
34:
860:
859:
855:
854:
853:
851:
850:
849:
848:
842:deletion review
595:try to keep up.
295:
276:
190:
181:
146:
130:
127:
90:
87:
72:
66:
60:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
858:
856:
847:
846:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
755:
754:
735:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
608:
596:
559:
555:
474:
366:
365:
364:
342:
341:
324:
306:
305:
286:
251:
250:
187:
126:
125:
120:
110:
105:
88:
86:
81:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
857:
845:
843:
839:
835:
830:
829:
818:
814:
810:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
742:
739:
736:
734:
730:
726:
722:
719:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
578:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
496:
490:
489:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
455:
454:the Erdor AfD
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:boardgamegeek
425:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
359:
355:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
307:
303:
300:
298:
292:
287:
284:
281:
279:
273:
268:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
246:
242:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
196:
193:
192:Find sources:
188:
184:
180:
177:
171:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
124:
121:
118:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
100:
99:
97:
92:
85:
82:
80:
79:
75:
69:
63:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
833:
831:
794:Newimpartial
737:
720:
698:
694:
693:
612:Newimpartial
563:Newimpartial
524:Newimpartial
497:of the link
482:Newimpartial
445:
432:Newimpartial
392:Newimpartial
331:Newimpartial
326:
309:
297:CAPTAIN RAJU
296:
278:CAPTAIN RAJU
277:
252:
240:
234:
226:
219:
213:
207:
201:
191:
178:
89:
49:
47:
31:
28:
790:WP:ACADEMIC
217:free images
809:Capitals00
776:Capitals00
744:Capitals00
577:WP:SOURCES
558:mentions".
552:WP:SOURCES
501:"after at"
424:MJ Harnish
838:talk page
762:Chetsford
651:Chetsford
633:Chetsford
582:Chetsford
538:Chetsford
507:Chetsford
461:Chetsford
410:Chetsford
375:Chetsford
354:Chetsford
256:Chetsford
37:talk page
840:or in a
600:Hillfolk
176:View log
117:glossary
73:contribs
39:or in a
223:WP refs
211:scholar
149:protect
144:history
94:New to
61:Mythdon
450:ferret
314:TH1980
310:Delete
195:Google
153:delete
699:merge
238:JSTOR
199:books
183:Stats
170:views
162:watch
158:links
16:<
813:talk
798:talk
780:talk
766:talk
748:talk
738:Keep
729:talk
721:Keep
711:talk
695:Keep
655:talk
637:talk
616:talk
586:talk
567:talk
542:talk
528:talk
511:talk
486:talk
465:talk
436:talk
414:talk
396:talk
379:talk
358:talk
335:talk
327:Keep
318:talk
260:talk
231:FENS
205:news
166:logs
140:talk
136:edit
67:talk
50:keep
707:BOZ
701:to
602:or
426:at
245:TWL
174:– (
815:)
800:)
782:)
768:)
750:)
731:)
713:)
705:.
657:)
639:)
627:,
618:)
588:)
569:)
544:)
530:)
513:)
488:)
467:)
438:)
416:)
398:)
381:)
373:.
360:)
337:)
320:)
293:.
274:.
262:)
225:)
168:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
76:)
70:•
811:(
796:(
778:(
764:(
746:(
727:(
709:(
653:(
635:(
614:(
584:(
565:(
540:(
526:(
509:(
484:(
463:(
434:(
412:(
394:(
377:(
356:(
333:(
316:(
258:(
249:)
241:·
235:·
227:·
220:·
214:·
208:·
202:·
197:(
189:(
186:)
179:·
172:)
134:(
119:)
115:(
64:(
58:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.