Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Dragon Miniatures


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Crimson Dragon Miniatures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this range of miniatures is notable, nothing to establish this could be found beyond the sole review already in the article. Company has no article either. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Added a second independent review, establishing notability. Guinness323 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Correction to my previous entry: I added a third independent review as well. Guinness323 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, can you please review what "independent" means? Reviews of Dungeons & Dragons miniatures in the official Dungeons & Dragons magazine (published by the makers of D&D) are by definition not independent at all, but reviews with a clear COI. This is the textbook example of a source that fails the rules in WP:IIS. There still is only the one independent review, just like when this was nominated. Fram (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TAG Industries had no formal or informal commercial connections to TSR. By 1980, the fantasy role-playing industry had grown way beyond D&D to encompass dozens of fantasy role-playing systems published by various companies. Publishing reviews of fantasy miniatures did not represent a clear commercial benefit to TSR, since the figurines could just as easily be used in rival fantasy RPGs like RuneQuest or Tunnels & Trolls. Included in the article from Dragon #81 are reviews for a line of contemporary figurines such as secret agents and police -- clearly not designed for TSR's fantasy RPGs. It's obvious Dragon was reviewing products not just for use with their own line of RPGs but of of interest to the wider gaming community. I do not use Dragon reviews of TSR products, that would be a clear conflict of interest. But arm's-length reviews of third-party products meet the definition of independent.Guinness323 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * keep I agree, Dragon is a fine source for reviews of non-TSR products. Sources all told are over the bar. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can the reviews be linked? At the very least, in this discussion, through some sort of temporary file sharing service? I am concerned whether the reviews are in-depth or just mentions in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd not thought to look before, but a web search found them on-line. https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg081.pdf is issue 81 for example.  The reviews are just a single paragraph and a picture. Between the two, I think we're in good shape, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources are OKAY. ≫ ( Lil- Unique1 ) -{ Talk  }- 18:29, 30 June 2020 (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.