Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Dice (video game)


 * 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) f  e  minist  15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Dice (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, no sources cited to establish notability and no reason to believe sources are "probable". Two sources cited, one of which is to a WP article. Atsme 📞📧 04:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as I believe GameSpy is a valid independent source, and that second source is to a Russian game magazine (which I admit I can't read) but from following those external links in the citation it looks like a legit review of the game. I will try to find more sources from the "find sources" later today. If not a keep, then let's do a merge to Dragon Dice at least. BOZ (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just on some quick searching, I found a review of the game by the GameSpot staff: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dragon-dice-review/1900-2539990/ Will see what else I can find. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is linked to by WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Game.EXE which looks like an index of the reviews in said Russian game magazine, and it mentions that User:Hellknowz can be contacted about it for more information. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, GameSpy is reliable according to WP:VGRS. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As is Game.EXE. I've added a link to the Archive.org-hosted file for the game and removed the imgur/pastebin links. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - this article was a redirect to Dragon Dice since it's simply the electronic version which is already mentioned in the main article. GNG requires multiple independent sources for this version of the game, not just one. Atsme 📞📧 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, no significant coverage in multiple independent sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Not enough standalone notability. A redirect would be okay, since the video game is covered in the target, but the redirect keeps getting moved back to an article. So if a redirect is the decision, then the redirect needs page protection.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much of the following relates specifically to the video game and how much to the board game since I'm at work, but the board game article could use improvement too:
 * GameSpot review (the same link as BOZ above),
 * Wired review -- board game,
 * Igromania review and basic strategy guide,
 * TechnologyTell passing reference -- board game,
 * Wired Gamestorm passing coverage -- board game,
 * Wired Gamestorm passing coverage -- board game,
 * RPGamer passing reference,
 * Kotaku passing reference, -- probably board game
 * CNET in Spanish passing reference, -- possibly conflated item
 * GameSpot preview
 * At a minimum, this is a merge . It might be a keep, given a) the age of the game (and thus sources may exist which do not exist on the Internet) and b) the fact I can't review the sources I've provided to see whether the video game is separately notable. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also covered in a couple other magazines. I think I might just make this a weak keep and if/when the article's sources are exhausted, we can evaluate a merge then. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While there's clearly reasons to keep, I would strongly suggest that a merge is preferrable option. The physical game has a lot of game cruft (list of races, for example), and so if you trim down the rules, there's plenty of space to include the computerized version as well, which follows the same rules. --M ASEM (t) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - this review of Dragon Dice tells us the game isn't/wasn't notable, unless it's notable as a lemon. It also fails WP:BTG so it probably needs to be combined with this AfD. The video game did a little better but the lack of RS tells us it's not notable, either. The magazine that supposedly had a review about video is defunct, and I'm not seeing that it passes GNG.  I think what needs to happen here is a combo AfD of the 3 articles. Atsme 📞📧 22:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A negative review still counts towards notability. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no mention of the games failure or how it almost bankrupted the company so if you're concluding that its notability is its failure, and if this AfD somehow ends in keep, the article needs serious editing to reflect the games notability beginning with the lead using what RS have written. Atsme 📞📧 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I think this does meet the minimum sourcing threshold for a standalone article, but because there's so little more about it that differs from the physical dice game, the reader is better informed if this were part of the article on the physical game. If one is !vote counting (which one shouldn't) I'd consider that I'm saying "keep", but I really think the merge makes a lot more sense outside of this AFD. --M ASEM  (t) 23:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable in-depth (reviews) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. To elaborate against some arguments above: notability is WP:GNG -- being covered by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's positive, negative, success, failure, review, history, etc. We don't conclude anything from the content. It's the presence of content that determines notability. When the content is fleshed out and we can see how much there is, we can consider merging, but that's an editorial decision, not based on notability. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * if you're referring to the sources listed by BOZ above, the in-depth ones are reviews of the failed board game, not the subject of this AfD. Passing mention is not considered acceptable when determining WP:N. If there truly is the in-depth coverage you speak of, and if it  is so readily available, then why haven't they been cited in the article? Hopefully the closer will not go by an !vote count and will consider the substantive argument and lack of RS.  The board game article which is being conflated with this article represents most of the references listed above, and that article needs a serious rewrite because it fails NPOV and reads more like a weighted puff piece which doesn't reflect the reason it is achieved notability. Atsme 📞📧 12:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG is not determined by sources cited in the article, but by the existence of sources. I see a GameSpot review, fullpage CGW review, a 3-page Game.EXE review -- this alone establishes multiple sources for GNG. Supplemented by GameSpy, Igromania. I don't have access to NextGen, which appears to have some content. Given our incomplete listings in reference library for older magazines, I suspect more. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Notability which states "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. To go one step further, the reason it fails is also based on policy, WP:V and WP:NOT, WP:NTEMP, WP:SUSTAINED and that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The game was a lemon - not encyclopedic unless someone ate it and doing so made it part of game history.  Do you have any idea how many games are introduced, last a little while, and fade off into the wild blue yonder.  WP is NOT A LIST of failed games, either. Atsme 📞📧 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidence of notability is established in above keep votes. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep With three reliable references (Gamespy, Gamespot, Game.EXE) and potentially more, I think it squeaks by the notability threshold.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:26, 16 July 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.