Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S/lay w/Me

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 redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements. There were some sources found, but it's questionable whether most of them are WP:RS. The redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, complies with WP:ATD, and preserves the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S/lay w/Me

[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)

Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There seems to be a very lengthy rabbit hole of non-notable pages associated with Adept Press and or D&D in general. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how do we even know this thing exists. ⌚️ (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This fails WP:GNG entirely.Quarterto500 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good coverage in (RS) Applecline, review on a Polish gaming website, two listed reviews in French magazines, seems to meet WP:GNG Guinness323 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Agree on Applecline. The other sources appear to be blogs and user review sites. Chetsford (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish website is a professional on-line portal with reviews of various media, and is hard to characterize, since it uses reviews from both paid editorial staff and users. The review chosen for this article is by a staff editor. The two French magazines are exactly that, printed (hardcopy dead tree) magazines. Again, not blogs.Guinness323 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The review chosen for this article is by a staff editor. That's not how it appears to me. The two French magazines are exactly that, printed (hardcopy dead tree) magazines. The fact that something appears on paper does not make it WP:RS. In any case, Le Maradeur is an ezine. I am unable to identify any method or manner of subscribing or buying an issue and it has no ISSN. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The name of the Polish website is Poltergeist (polter.pl), not Locke & Key. I was taken in by a large title-like ad for the upcoming TV series Locke & Key. Duhhh!Guinness323 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, it happens. In a lot of RPG AfDs we find people furiously google the name of the game or game company and then slap up the first things they can find, often having never heard of the blogs before, and then construct an argument as to why it's RS post facto. This is a frequent result of this approach to WP:N analysis, so no worries. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323 since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements, where this game is mentioned. It appears that only one review comes from a reliable source, and one reliable review is not enough to establish notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:05, 26 February 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.