676:(except for BLPs or controversial statements) on RSN, which is a different question as to whether or not it contributes to notability. A source may be RS but mention of a person or thing in that source does not contribute to its notability. The minutes of the Houston City Council are probably reliable for the transactions of the Houston City Council; that does not assign notability to any person, place, or thing read into the minutes. Similarly, we consider many trade journals (e.g.
801:- To be clear, across its four volumes it is 1600 pages and, according to its indices, address more than 3,000 games in those 1600 pages, many of which are mentioned in no other RS known to man. Applecline is overt in saying this is a "comprehensive" history of all games. While it, as established by RSN, is RS for non-BLPs, it has the characteristics of a directory and - though perhaps factual - mere inclusion in this catalog doesn't contribute to notability.
680:, etc.) to be RS, but do not generally consider them to contribute to the notability of the companies they cover. Since "Designers & Dragons" - in its umpteen volumes - covers literally just about every conceivable game ever published it follows that there is no assignment of notability for merely appearing in it, though it might be a RS for facts about those games.
742:
Unfortunately, there is no conflict in
Chetsford's analysis. Articles such as these have a difficult time being referenced to reliable independent sources. Your analysis here is simply a straw man, as a directory which indiscriminately discusses a source does not necessarily contribute to notability,
703:
By the way, closers are bound by policy to ignore arguments, such as the one you are currently making, that are unsupported by - and in fact conflict with - key WP policies. Your comparison of the major, four volume, reference work on RPGs to the minutes of a mid-sized municipal government suggest
700:- the latter does not recognize a class of independent sources that are reliable but do not contribute to notability because they are too comprehensive. Your argument is equivalent to arguing that a dead tree Britannica does not contribute to notability because it is too detailed.
251:
779:
SportingFlyer, the
Appelcline text is not a "directory" and is by no means indiscriminate; it is a nonfiction text in chapter and paragraph form that treats only important RPG works by each designer and publisher. The discussion of
819:
is a reliable, independent source. It is a historical narrative of the companies, designers, and games it discussed and has nine of the characteristics of a directory. There are many games and game products it does
557:
784:
is three dead-tree book pages long, and I would be happy to send you the text off-wiki (which is legit for me to do given the copyright regime where I live) but of course I cannot post it here.
743:
and even if it did we're still short of sources to keep this one. I am, however, happy to review any new sources you provide and would be willing to switch my !vote if better sources are found.
537:
245:
478:
Gizmodo is a repost of a personal blog "Robot Viking" and is not RS. "Designers & Dragons" is not RS. I seem to have erred in saying a single source, as we currently have no sources.
204:
673:
177:
172:
181:
164:
211:
307:
136:
151:
282:
Company article unsourced to anything other than company's own website. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com, fails to locate
845:: for lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. I do not believe that inclusion in a single catalogue qualifies as significant coverage. --
402:
I appreciate the
Gizmodo link. "Gmsmagazine.com" is not RS. Due to insufficient RS - demonstrated by article sourced a single reference (Gizmodo) -
266:
233:
338:(reliable source per RSN)and received many, many RS reviews which meet NBOOK and the GNG. AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and this looks like the vindictive
168:
757:
644:
598:
99:
970:
per
Newimlartial and Guinness323. Sufficient reliable sources demonstrate notability as is, even before more are added to the article.
630:
Only the gizmodo source possibly qualifies, but it was originally printed on a personal blog, so we really need two more good sources.
227:
131:
124:
17:
1046:
1017:
996:
979:
960:
928:
907:
878:
854:
833:
810:
793:
762:
717:
689:
667:
649:
621:
603:
569:
549:
512:
487:
473:
459:
441:
415:
397:
375:
354:
319:
299:
106:
987:
Sources in the article meet WP:N. I'm not sure why this is here. Designers and
Dragons as well as Pyramid are reliable sources.
223:
160:
112:
273:
145:
141:
381:
939:
654:
The
Gizmodo review is an entirely reliable source in this context, and why are you ignoring the three-page discussion in
1063:
609:
40:
894:
345:
Also, NCORP does not apply. Chetsford, you can tell the difference between a company and a publication, can't you?
239:
493:
888:
In addition to the RS Applecline citation, this was nominated for role-playing Game of the Year at the 2010
749:
636:
590:
496:
is the discussion that you stated, that concluded that
Applecline is reliable. Are you funning us, perhaps?
93:
874:
829:
789:
713:
663:
617:
565:
508:
469:
437:
393:
350:
1059:
924:
903:
850:
36:
545:
975:
806:
685:
483:
455:
411:
371:
315:
295:
259:
447:
403:
1042:
1038:
744:
631:
585:
78:
1026:
824:
discuss in its four volumes, so your accusations here are nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT AFAICT.
672:"Robot Viking" (republished on Gizmodo) is not RS. Designers & Dragons was discovered to be
870:
825:
785:
709:
659:
613:
561:
504:
465:
433:
389:
346:
120:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1058:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
74:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
920:
899:
846:
499:
And
Gizmodo certainly offers the necessary degree of editorial oversight to make the review
705:
697:
581:
287:
992:
541:
1005:
500:
283:
53:
971:
951:
802:
681:
479:
451:
407:
367:
311:
291:
1013:
696:
Thanks for setting out so clearly the difference between your own thinking and the
198:
798:
363:
385:
988:
464:
Creative accounting, but
Gizmodo and Applecline are two distinct SOGCOV RS.
428:(Vol. 4, pp. 250-2). You really ought to withdraw this nom, to protect your
429:
406:
is not demonstrated and the article should be deleted for failing the GNG.
1009:
339:
889:
342:
AfD all over again. Perhaps this admin was given his tools too soon.
64:
892:. (It might have won if it hadn't been published the same year as
608:
Sources have been provided here, per policy this is what matters.
558:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
1054:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
915:
With the award nomination and two RS citations (Applecline and
706:
you might not be clear what an independent, reliable source is
942:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
869:
is a long-form text of cultural history, not a "catalogue".
919:
review) this would seem to meet notability requirements.
58:
862:
538:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
194:
190:
186:
258:
678:
Food Processing & Manufacturing, Packaging Digest
948:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
420:GMS certainly is a RS, but if you don't like that,
366:Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared.
272:
898:). These two sources strongly suggest notability.
492:Perhaps your memory is not what it once was, but
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1066:). No further edits should be made to this page.
556:Note: This discussion has been included in the
536:Note: This discussion has been included in the
306:Note: This discussion has been included in the
446:A single source is insufficient to demonstrate
8:
152:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
555:
535:
308:list of Games-related deletion discussions
305:
658:, found to be a reliable source at RSN?
388:. Sometimes Google works as advertised.
815:As I and others have noted elsewhere,
68:. The consensus is now also clear to
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1004:per above comments since there are
24:
364:"received many, many RS reviews"
161:Wild Talents (role-playing game)
137:Introduction to deletion process
113:Wild Talents (role-playing game)
799:"is by no means indiscriminate"
584:- needs another source or two.
334:was discussed in Appelcline's
1:
1047:02:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
1018:23:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
997:14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
107:12:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
980:15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
961:12:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
929:20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
908:07:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
879:18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
855:04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
834:11:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
811:05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
794:04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
763:04:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
718:01:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
690:01:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
668:00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
650:00:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
622:00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
604:00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
570:20:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
550:18:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
513:01:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
488:00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
474:00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
460:21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
442:21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
416:20:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
398:20:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
376:19:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
355:18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
320:17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
300:17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
127:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1083:
424:is discussed at length in
861:Sadly, you are repeating
1056:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1031:Designers & Dragons
867:Designers & Dragons
817:Designers & Dragons
656:Designers & Dragons
426:Designers & Dragons
336:Designers & Dragons
1029:met between Gizmodo,
125:Articles for deletion
674:"generally reliable"
580:as it stands, fails
75:(non-admin closure)
610:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
963:
959:
572:
552:
322:
142:Guide to deletion
132:How to contribute
77:
1074:
958:
956:
949:
947:
945:
943:
865:from Chetsford.
800:
760:
752:
647:
639:
601:
593:
365:
277:
276:
262:
214:
202:
184:
122:
102:
96:
88:
85:
82:
73:
67:
61:
34:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1064:deletion review
964:
952:
950:
938:
936:
913:Further Comment
756:
748:
643:
635:
597:
589:
219:
210:
175:
159:
156:
119:
116:
100:
94:
86:
83:
80:
63:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1080:
1078:
1069:
1068:
1050:
1049:
1020:
999:
982:
946:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
882:
881:
858:
857:
839:
838:
837:
836:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
701:
625:
624:
606:
574:
573:
553:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
358:
357:
343:
324:
323:
280:
279:
216:
155:
154:
149:
139:
134:
117:
115:
110:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1079:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
986:
983:
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
965:
962:
957:
955:
944:
941:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
911:
910:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
891:
887:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
841:
840:
835:
831:
827:
823:
818:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
783:
764:
761:
759:
753:
751:
746:
745:SportingFlyer
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
699:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:
651:
648:
646:
640:
638:
633:
632:SportingFlyer
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
605:
602:
600:
594:
592:
587:
586:SportingFlyer
583:
579:
576:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
534:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
495:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
275:
271:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
225:
222:
221:Find sources:
217:
213:
209:
206:
200:
196:
192:
188:
183:
179:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
138:
135:
133:
130:
129:
128:
126:
121:
114:
111:
109:
108:
105:
103:
97:
90:
89:
76:
71:
66:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1055:
1053:
1034:
1030:
1022:
1001:
984:
967:
953:
937:
916:
912:
893:
885:
871:Newimpartial
866:
842:
826:Newimpartial
821:
816:
786:Newimpartial
782:Wild Talents
781:
755:
747:
710:Newimpartial
677:
660:Newimpartial
655:
642:
634:
614:Newimpartial
596:
588:
577:
562:Newimpartial
505:Newimpartial
466:Newimpartial
434:Newimpartial
425:
422:Wild Talents
421:
390:Newimpartial
386:GMS Magazine
347:Newimpartial
335:
331:
327:
281:
269:
263:
255:
248:
242:
236:
230:
220:
207:
118:
91:
79:
69:
49:
47:
31:
28:
921:Guinness323
900:Guinness323
847:K.e.coffman
384:and here's
332:publication
246:free images
65:Guinness323
954:Sandstein
895:Pathfinder
542:Lightburst
450:. Thanks.
1060:talk page
972:oknazevad
863:Fake news
803:Chetsford
682:Chetsford
480:Chetsford
452:Chetsford
448:WP:SIGCOV
408:Chetsford
404:WP:SIGCOV
368:Chetsford
312:Chetsford
292:Chetsford
56:added by
37:talk page
1062:or in a
1039:feminist
1027:WP:THREE
940:Relisted
501:reliable
340:Hillfolk
286:. Fails
205:View log
146:glossary
101:Contribs
39:or in a
1035:Pyramid
917:Pyramid
382:Gizmodo
380:Here's
330:- this
252:WP refs
240:scholar
178:protect
173:history
123:New to
890:ENnies
843:Delete
698:WP:GNG
582:WP:GNG
578:Delete
430:record
288:WP:GNG
224:Google
182:delete
52:. Per
1006:WP:RS
989:Hobit
704:that
284:WP:RS
267:JSTOR
228:books
212:Stats
199:views
191:watch
187:links
81:NNADI
54:WP:RS
16:<
1043:talk
1033:and
1023:Keep
1014:talk
1002:Keep
993:talk
985:Keep
976:talk
968:Keep
925:talk
904:talk
886:Keep
875:talk
851:talk
830:talk
807:talk
790:talk
714:talk
686:talk
664:talk
618:talk
566:talk
546:talk
509:talk
494:here
484:talk
470:talk
456:talk
438:talk
412:talk
394:talk
372:talk
351:talk
328:Keep
316:talk
296:talk
260:FENS
234:news
195:logs
169:talk
165:edit
95:Talk
87:LUCK
84:GOOD
70:keep
62:and
50:keep
1010:BOZ
822:not
274:TWL
203:– (
59:BOZ
1045:)
1037:.
1025:.
1016:)
1008:.
995:)
978:)
927:)
906:)
877:)
853:)
832:)
809:)
792:)
716:)
708:.
688:)
666:)
620:)
612:.
568:)
560:.
548:)
540:.
511:)
503:.
486:)
472:)
458:)
440:)
432:.
414:)
396:)
374:)
353:)
318:)
310:.
298:)
290:.
254:)
197:|
193:|
189:|
185:|
180:|
176:|
171:|
167:|
72:.
1041:(
1012:(
991:(
974:(
923:(
902:(
873:(
849:(
828:(
805:(
788:(
758:C
754:·
750:T
712:(
684:(
662:(
645:C
641:·
637:T
616:(
599:C
595:·
591:T
564:(
544:(
507:(
482:(
468:(
454:(
436:(
410:(
392:(
370:(
349:(
314:(
294:(
278:)
270:·
264:·
256:·
249:·
243:·
237:·
231:·
226:(
218:(
215:)
208:·
201:)
163:(
148:)
144:(
104:)
98:|
92:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.