Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primetime Adventures

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. While there were some weak keep arguments, there were some good ones too.(non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime Adventures

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Primetime Adventures (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)

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. Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" 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? Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Designers references are on pages 149, 179, 183, 254, and 290. Really, the indecx could be your friend. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm not seeing it but - in any case - can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS? Or was it just that one? Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the professional and Reliably Sourced reviews is that by MJ Harnish at boardgamegeek. 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". Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 "User Profile for MJ Harnish". 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 ferret also told you in the Erdor AfD "you didn't provide sources when asked so NEXIST wasn't met" I sense that there is a reasonable need to underscore this point. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
And I would remind you that in this AfD and its parallel for The Mountain Witch, 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. Newimpartial (talk)
Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review - Here's a screenshot [1] of the link [2] "after at" [3]. 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. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed above; it is [4]. 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. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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? Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:SOURCES, "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.
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 mentions".
NBOOK is met, even without the Indie awards. Why not withdraw the nomination? Newimpartial (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, message boards are not RS. Per WP:SOURCES 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. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 try to keep up.
And no, Chetsford, no-one except yourself has yet stated that Hillfolk or Primetime Adventures 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 Designers & Dragons, I suppose it is too much to hope that you would actually listen to the community).
I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself before engaging in deletion domination, but that is clearly too much to ask for.Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Do try to keep up.", "I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself" - 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. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 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)
That's better. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial in spirit and especially if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per our guidelines, notability is established by significant coverage. Mere proof that something exists is not proof of that thing's notability. Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established when a academic publisher provides "significant coverage". Capitals00 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, dude, there is no requirement for WP:ACADEMIC sourcing. Multiple, reliable sources are sufficient. And, note to Chetsford, significant coverage from multiple sources has been demonstrated here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Primetime_Adventures&oldid=867162435"