Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Roleplaying 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. There seems a rough consensus that sufficient reliable sources (both present and extant) exist to demonstrate WP:GNG. A reminder to editors on both sides, both her and in the related AfDs to remain civil (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Roleplaying Game

[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)

No references other than to product page of publisher. A BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any SIGCOV mentions in RS. Part of the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I found one more source, and hopefully more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Cubicle 7. BOZ (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Hobit. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I mean I did not mention the book in the AFD, but when I say "I found one more source" that was the one I was talking about. So noted in case anyone has a concern about the book as a source. BOZ (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources aren't great but meet the WP:N bar. Won the ENnie for Best Family game. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"sources aren't great" Since five of the eight unique sources are to the company's own product page and e-store, and two of the others to trade show webpages, I'd agree with that much. Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of this, Chet, but what matters at AfD (for non-BLP pages) is not the quality of sourcing in the article, but the quality of sourcing that exists. In this case the extant references are just fine; many are simply not in the article. Which is why BEFORE is more than just a Linklater film series. Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. It doesn't really matter how many of the references aren't independent/RS, so long as there are multiple RS remaining. The publisher website links aren't "negative RSes". If you can delete a bunch of references and the remainder passes muster by you, I'm not sure why you wouldn't do that instead of posting an AFD. (I lie. I do know why.) - Sangrolu (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2018 (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.