Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules According to Ral: Chaos Wars

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 delete. No comment on the general reliability of Dragon as a source, but the consensus clearly thinks it is not in this specific case. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rules According to Ral: Chaos Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No reliable sources indicating any notability were found in the 39 Google hits to be added to the sole review from "Dragon", which reviewed apparently everything they received.[1] Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the implication that Dragon is non-RS?Guinness323 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on available sources, or merge to Ral Partha Enterprises per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BOZ, you always vote "keep based on available sources" without addressing the actual analysis of the sources in the nomination. This is rather disruptive. We have one source (which reviewed about everything) and a database listing, which clearly is not enough to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to address this idea that Dragon "reviewed about everything". First point, Dragon was a monthly journal that lasted 30 years (359 issues), so it's natural that with such a long lifespan, the number of games and sourcebooks they reviewed would be substantial. But there are hundreds of games and related sourcebooks published every year, far more than Dragon could possibly review, even if they had devoted three times the space to game reviews. Far from reviewing everything, their editors actually had to be fairly picky.Guinness323 (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A number of new sources have been added. Guinness323 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see: a database listing from some random website[2], a page that doesn't even mention Chaos Wars[3], a blog[4], and a primary source at Kickstarter[5]. That's four sources which add absolutely nothing wrt notability. Fram (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the new sources added are RS and do not establish notability. Nor does a single review on a magazine that seems to publish many; if there are more reviews in other publications, I can't find them. Valeince (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As already mentioned above, none of the added citations are from reliable, secondary sources, so once again, the only valid coverage this minor game received was in Dragon. Which, as the only potentially valid source, is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 28 January 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.