Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Rooms


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dungeon Rooms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One review is not sufficient to establish notability. Listing in RPG.net is just that, a listing, not a review. Couldn't find any books that even reference this set. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per available sources, or merge to List of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay publications. BOZ (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BOZ, on every AfD you state the same "Keep per available sources", but you never actually engage the nomination statement or provide actual sources to establish notability. Could you please have an actual discussion instead of a straight !vote? I understand that you, as the one that created all these articles, wants to keep them, but the amount of articles you have created which have been either deleted or redirected is rather worying, and AfD statements like this do nothing to indicate that you actually understand (or care) about what should and shouldn't have a separate article. Fram (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment BOZ also voted "keep" without explanation on To Court the King as well.  sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  05:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay publications per above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - As mentioned by the nom, the RPG.net reference is not valid as a reliable source, which leaves only the single review. One valid source is really not enough to pass the WP:GNG.  As the product is not notable, and as it has such a generic title, I don't see it being useful as a Redirect, as proposed.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete one review is not enough to establish notability, and the title is too generic to redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete more a product review and promotion PenulisHantu (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Added a new independent reference, the French site Guide du Rôliste Galactique (aka Le Grog). Two independent sources (Dragon and Le Grog) would suggest notability.Guinness323 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Le Grog does not appear to be a reliable source, but a user-generated one. The page, in question, appears to be nothing more than a basic set of information on the product, and then a user review.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Guide du rôliste galactique (GRoG) is not a user-generated site, it is an on-line encyclopedia about role-playing games created and administered by an association of the same name. It has been a fixture of the French role-playing scene since 2000. The reviews attached to some of the game descriptions are moderated user-generated reviews, but the encyclopedic content is created and maintained by GRoG. You can find more information on the French Wikipedia site at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_du_roliste_galactique. If you don't speak French, the Google Translate service via Chrome does an adequate job.Guinness323 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the non-user review portion of the linked page is, as I said, nothing more than a database entry on the game's basic information, no different than the already mentioned RPG.net source. It shows that WP:ITEXISTS and nothing more.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Note that Guinness323 gets specifically invited to these AfDs, and that analysis of Le Grog has been done at other AfDs as well, to no avail. It is a good website, but it is basically a controlled wiki, and doesn't give any more notability than e.g. IMDb does for films, Discogs for music, or Boardgamegeek for boardgames or rolaplaying games. Fram (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Le GRoG is a database only in the sense that its editors list and describe role-playing games and books that are considered good enough enough for inclusion. Not nearly everything makes the grade, only the items that the administrators feel are noteworthy. Yes, the list of inclusions is large (over 8000 at present), but the universe of role-playing games is large, and growing larger each year. The site is independent of any games company or organization, and being nominated for their "GRoG d'Or" (Golden GRoG) annual award for game of the year is touted on both sides of the Atlantic as a significant achievement. (Example here from the American company Posthuman Studios: https://eclipsephase.com/eclipse-phase-nominated-grog-dor )Guinness323 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the site had actually given this product that award, you might have an argument. But it didn’t, and the only information it contains regarding it is a bare bones straight description of the product.  That is not significant coverage, and does absolutely nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable with poor sourcing as a result of no third-party coverage. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  05:40, 22 January 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.