Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(ASMR) Vin Diesel DMing a Game of D&D Just For You


 * 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 merge to merritt k.  Sandstein  11:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(ASMR) Vin Diesel DMing a Game of D&D Just For You

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable game, fails WP:N. All the references are passing mentions, lists, or "this a a thing" type WP:NOTNEWS stories copy-pasted from one another. There is no in depth coverage or critical analysis of the game. Leigh Alexander saying, "my friend made a cool thing" is not enough. - hahnch e n 18:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep refs 3, 7, 8 in the existing article are independent nontrivial RSs. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For quick reference -
 * 3 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/let-vin-diesel-dungeon-master-000002269.html (this is a duplicate of reference 2)
 * 7 - http://boingboing.net/2015/05/27/having-vin-diesel-as-your-dung.html
 * 8 - https://socialmediacollective.org/2015/12/02/17-games-that-showcase-gaming/
 * I reviewed these before I made the nomination. - hahnch e n 23:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I disagree with your assessment of these three sources, and find them sufficient to demonstrate notability where you do not. Mind you, I have no problem with editorially merging this somewhere else, but the argument that the article, as it stands now, violates policy and must be prohibited from existing as a standalone article... is uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear your take on "Social Media Collective". To me, it looks like a WordPress blog that presents little more than a sentence and a download link... Sergecross73   msg me  01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hosted for Microsoft by Wordpress". It's a list, has a mention and a bit of commentary: independent RS, could be more extensive, but certainly counts. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Theres a bit of leeway in defining "significant coverage" but a single sentence on a one-of-17-entry listicle is pretty definitively not "significant coverage". It's pretty much the definition of a "passing mention". Sergecross73   msg me  10:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable game Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm leaning that way myself, but can you explain why? Stances given without any real reason are usually discounted by the discussion closer. Just saying WP:NOTNOTABLE isn't worth much here. Sergecross73   msg me  17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While the fact that this game exists has been mentioned in a couple places, that in itself doesn't make it notable. Nearly all, if not all, of the sources treat it as if "oh, that's neat" and move on. Heck, there's probably quite a few news articles/blog posts floating around about that Redditor who ate a vinyl record milkshake because Kendrick Lamar didn't drop a second album - but that definitely doesn't in itself merit an Wikipedia article on him because he did something out of the ordinary, and neither does this game. As Czar states below, the best solution is just to include it in the game creator's article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding your rationale. I think I prefer Czar's specific approach, but you definitely expanded your stance into something policy-based and helpful. Thanks for that. Sergecross73   msg me  12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to merritt k. I started to write a complete source analysis but why bother when there is an article for the game's creator? Write about it there and spin it out summary style only when warranted by the sourcing, which is currently thin. The best sources are Offworld (Boing Boing) and Polygon, neither of which go into enough depth to do justice to this game as its own topic. Nerd Approved (which is not a reliable source) repackages BB. The other sources are either primary to the topic or don't say more than a sentence about the game (passing mentions). Easy merge candidate. czar  05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per Czar. There's enough sourcing to verify basic details, but not write an article accurately depicting the subject. We do have a plausible merge target, plausible search term, and a source to give a basic definition at least, so I think merging is preferrable to outright deletion. Sergecross73   msg me  12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How much of it would you keep in the parent article? The appropriate weight for such a lightly covered work seems to me a list entry or at most a 1-2 sentence blurb. That already exists in the article. I don't really see the reasoning for merging what is left, rather than just removing it. - hahnch e n 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that what exists in the article as of now is sufficient given the weight of the work. Any further expansion isn't really merited in this case. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd keep as much as pertains to the developer from the mentioned Offworld and Polygon sources. czar  02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm glossing over something, Merritt's articles doesn't even define the game other than "a game about caring". I think we could at least add a sentence defining the game a little better than that, right? And as Czar mentioned, neither of the two actual RS sources discussed above (Polygon/Yahoo and Boing Boing) are used in the article. It's not like I'm advocating a special subsection for it or something. Just a better defining sentence or two written according to a third party source or two. Sergecross73   msg me  03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So if there are "two actual RS", then you should be !voting keep, and then having a non-AfD discussion about how to clean up the article, including merging it. WP:DINC Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge is listed as an appropriate outcome at WP:Deletion process. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge is an acceptable stance at AFD, and nothing at DINC essay says otherwise. Come on, Jclemens, you're talking to a number of experienced editors here, not some newbies. Saying things like that is tantamount to WP:DTTR. We know how AFD works, thank you. Two minor, short sources about a subject is not some sort of obvious, "knock it out of the park, of course this subject is notable" type scenario. It's, quite frankly, teetering on the barest of bare minimums possible. Both sources are very short, and don't provide enough content to write much of an article. There's also a plausible merge target. Don't try to tell me merge isn't a valid choice here. It is. WP:DELETIONPROCESS clearly shows merge as a valid and common outcome at AFD, and WP:MERGE shows that it's a very clean-cut example of WP:MERGEREASON #3. Sergecross73   msg me  12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, merge is an acceptable outcome... if GNG is not met. GNG is met, and none of NOT is triggered, therefore the right venue for a merge discussion is a talk page, not an AfD. Unless there's a reason articulated at WP:DEL-REASON to be here in the first place, and I contend that there is not, then any AfD outcome other than a closure without action is 'wrong'.  Sure, the process has been applied incorrectly and inconsistently for so long by so many people with so many admins going along with it that regulars have come to accept 'merge' as a valid AfD outcome in many, many situations where it was never appropriate. Don't get me wrong, that's a ton better than deleting potentially encyclopedic content; that still doesn't mean it's a policy-compliant process and outcome.  DTTR is a poor analogy, but if you think I'm talking down to you or anyone in the debate, you have my sincerest apologies.  The fact is, the AfD culture is part of how Wikipedia drives away editors, and by reminding experienced editors that when what we do isn't what we say we should do, there's a problem.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole basis of your argument is extremely shaky to begin with though - the premise that a mere two short sources establish notability is not a commonly held one. Even ignoring the fact that 2 isn't very many, they're also not particularly long, nor do they actually say much of substance about the subject. The rest of your argument is...nothing more than a personal theory - there's a long-running precedent to merge articles like this when they're short on content and sources, again, per WP:MERGEREASON. It's pointless to argue about venue anyways, it's equally likely to be merged at AFD or a merge discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  17:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not have nominated the article if I believed GNG had been met. I clearly do not believe the "this is a thing" style news articles constitute significant coverage.  The coverage is on the level, as Kolbert argues above, as the viral reddit vinyl drinking guy.  AfD culture rewards effort rather than addressing the subject, had this article been a stub with the same sources, I have no doubt that there would not calls for a merging. - hahnch e n 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per Czar. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. When actually looked at, the sourcing being used is very thin, with most of the linked sources given only passing, one or two sentence mentions of the game.  There just isn't enough significant coverage to support an independent article, but since a valid Merge target exists, that seems like the best outcome.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.