Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden Kingdoms

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 (non-admin closure), as per the discussion's unanimous consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Kingdoms

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Kingdoms was the first full pulp game released for the d20 system and thus represents an adaption of that system from just fantasy to other genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothersin (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be harsh; but so? The d20 games listed on wikipedia are numerous (and I've flagged a bunch). Is being a new genre notable? It's doubtful. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the games are many, but by being the first it shows just how flexible the system (which is arguable the most flexible RPG system in the history of table-top games) can be. If "notable" follows your definition, you might as well wipe out all RPG's after D&D as they're numerous and most don't even carve out new genres. Brothersin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've found a second review (to go with the one that was already in the article). Citations are, of course, desireable, but this is likely enough to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't have a terribly strong argument. WP:IKNOWIT and it's relatively popular among the gaming community. I'm sure multiple reviews can be found within gaming community publications. -Verdatum (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found and added a link to a RPGnet review, so it is known and written about. Ray Yang (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." That there are indeed numerous articles on RPG products on Wikipedia is readily apparent, but the degree to which that's a policy violation is less so. RGTraynor 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews establish notability, and I personally know of it as being fairly widely discussed in the community. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (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.