Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiths and Pantheons


 * 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. Arguments of WP:NEXIST are valid and not to be discarded lightly for subjects released before most sources were available online but even if there was no sufficient coverage to support a full article, nominator failed to explain why a merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks (to be discussed at WP:Proposed mergers if necessary) is not a valid option (WP:ATD). Regards So  Why  09:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Faiths and Pantheons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has been tagged for needing additional citations for verification since 2016, and the Reception and Reviews sections have been empty since 2012. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I removed the reception section as an unnecessary section/hurdle. I added one review of the book. I will update as time permits. D&D related AfDs are popping up daily. I find this notable and it is a service to our readers that it remains. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lightburst or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. BOZ (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Odds are good that there are additional sources for this in the print periodicals for the industry, as almost all significant sourcebooks were reviewed by at least several of the titles. Not all of that material is online or easily searchable. I'm working on compiling it right now, actually. I get that there's a lot of stuff in the D&D topic space that probably does need to go, but in general, the area suffers from having had articles created relatively early on, but no one willing to do the heavy lifting to bring them up to modern project policy compliance. If I'm wrong, well, when I get to 3.5 sourcebooks on my cleanup crusade, I'll be the first one merging or redirecting it somewhere better. But that doesn't make deletion helpful right now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's been added since the AfD was started was a non-RS review and a link to the game's company product page. If you can provide some places where it may have been reviewed offline that would be significantly helpful. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In a world where I could conjure copies of anything at will to check for sources? My first three places to look for this one would probably be Pyramid, KoDT Magazine, and Game Trade Monthly. The time period around this title's release (3rd edition D&D, pre-3.5, in general...) admittedly makes sourcing more challenging. There's a gap in easily-accessible sources after the first wave of tabletop periodicals folded or shifted focus (with a solid candidate for the end date of that period being the 1998 death of Shadis), but before reliable internet reporting and more modern titles like the UK-published Tabletop Gaming (beginning in 2006). Worst case, a redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks would be helpful to preserve at least the skeleton of content in history, should further source reviews be more productive. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And as a followup, other places I'd like to look are Games Review (although I'm not sure that was still in-print in time for this release), the German Mephisto (although they didn't do as much D&D coverage as other RPGs), and the French Casus Belli. Random RPG product reviews sometimes show up in broader gaming magazines or wargaming magazines, too, so there's a huge universe to check. I know, I know, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST isn't a good argument to make. It's just frustrating, because I'm trying to claw back against the tide of over a decade of, effectively, deferred maintenance in this topic space, and there's an awful lot that needs done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This page suggests there may have been one review and another one in a German magazine?: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/45578/faiths-and-pantheons BOZ (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The German one there is Anduin, which began as more or less a fanzine, but continued for a very long time, such that, when it finally closed, it might very well have been the longest-running German gaming magazine. We can have joyous debates, I'm sure, about whether it should be considered a reliable source (my take: the first series, probably not; later issues, likely okay with caution). Naturally, Anduin is now defunct and its archives offline, but I should be able to check on this one all the same [EDIT: And I have a copy of that now, it's a page-and-a-half review of the book, which makes my poor German skills cry]. I'm not at all familiar with that other source, so give me a little bit on it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added review content from Anduin and the e-magazine Fictional Reality (which, please note, is unrelated to the current Fictional Reality website; sadly, I don't have publicly linkable archives for either of these). I suspect that there are other sources. This book got several foreign-language releases, and I'd bet a shiny quarter that there's a French review out there somewhere, probably either in Casus Belli or JDR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (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.