Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing 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. AFD also withdrawn by norminator. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a toy or game product that has had no sources attached to it for the preceding 15 years. A BEFORE check on Google News and JSTOR fails to find any references. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

*Strong Keep This game received extensive print reviews from reliable publications at the time of its release; it sails way beyond GNG requirements. A completely inappropriate nomination. Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you could provide the outlet names, dates, authors, and article titles for the "extensive print reviews" I can add them into the article and then withdraw the nom. However, we usually can't keep an article based only on an individual editor's vague memory of once seeing a source 40 years ago. Chetsford (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Dragon review was in Issue 80; the Space Gamer review was in Issue 60, and both were entirely independent of the subject. Someone who is not working today can look up the additional details required for citations, but the GNG is already met at this point (though there are many, many more references). Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Dragon" and "The Space Gamer" are not RS, I'm afraid and product reviews of a game in a game fan-zine would be WP:ROUTINE and WP:FANCRUFT even if they were, ergo it fails the GNG if that's all that exists. If you can maybe point out some of the coverage it received in places like the New York Times, CBS News, peer-reviewed journals, books from mainstream publishing houses, etc., that might be helpful, though. Otherwise, this probably needs to go to a Wikia site or some more appropriate place than Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you to drop this line of argument, Chetsford. In the 1980s, these two publications were professionally-edited magazines, not fanzines, and you really ought not to throw those labels around without knowing what you are talking about. It is not necessary for a game to be reviewed in the New York Times or academic presses in order to be notable, any more than an art exhibition needs to be discussed in the New York Times or academic presses. Professionally-edited specialty publications are quite sufficient.
 * In another matter, could you please stop AfD-bombing inappropriate articles, and maybe even have a look at the history of deletion discussions in this area, before we have to go to ANI about it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you to drop this line of argument, Chetsford. I appreciate your advice but have decided against following it at this time. Thank you for offering it, however! Professionally-edited specialty publications are quite sufficient. Actually, two routine product reviews will usually be quite insufficient to meet the WP:SIGCOV criteria for any commercial product be it a game, toaster, or athletic shoe. Chetsford (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you formed that particular opinion, Chetsford, but WP:NBOOK specifies that two published reviews are sufficient, and they need not come from news organizations. All of the products you have recently sent to AfD are published books, so NBOOK applies in this case. Hence, GNG is met, as I noted before. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a book as envisioned by NBOOK, it is a "a fantasy role-playing game" that consists of a variety of products assembled in a box or sold as supplements including dice, notepads, artwork in the form of fictional maps, instruction books, etc. Monopoly has an instruction book but we don't evaluate it by NBOOK. So does my Orajel toothbrush. The mere presence of bound and printed paper as one of a series of items included in a packaged product is not in the logical spirit of NBOOK. With only two (rumored) sources, both in questionably RS fan-zines, the article fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Chersford, your obstreperousness makes it difficult for me to remain polite. A magazine with a professional editorial staff is not a "fanzine". A book in a box - and this is the only one of your RPG nominations to date that shipped in a box - is still a book. The book is the game. To argue that NBOOK doesn't apply to Man, Myth and Magic because it shipped with dice and a poster is akin to arguing that NBOOK doesn't apply to Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home because the deluxe first edition shipped with an audio cassette of filk music for the book. The Unknown Armies RPG doesn't lose its book status if it ships in a slipcover that transforms into a GM screen. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "your obstreperousness makes it difficult for me to remain polite" I've never had difficulty remaining polite in an AFD so, while I can't empathize with you, I do sympathize and am sorry you're having difficulty. "A book in a box" In any case, this product is shipped with a game board (what it refers to as "maps"), notepads, dice, and an instruction/rules booklet, and is designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego. It is not a book in the spirit of NBOOK regardless of how it is branded or marketed by the manufacturer. The very fact that this article is so bereft of sources that no other argument is left than trying to re-imagine this game system as a book so as to invoke inherent notability on the basis of two fanzine reviews probably makes the argument for deletion better than I could. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! Chetsford (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No editor who believes that role-play game rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" should be allowed to nominate RPGs for deletion. But full marks for trolling! Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "But full marks for trolling!" Is this absolutely necessary? You previously indicated you would refrain from using AFD discussions for personal attacks against editors with whose !vote you disagreed. AFD is a discussion in which we share and discuss our opinions and examine the differences between them. It's not a space for us to belittle each other's motivations. If you find the subject of roleplaying games is so emotional for you that you can't contribute without calling other editors names perhaps there are other areas of WP you could consider contributing to for a bit? Chetsford (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you unaware that repeating untrue statements on which you have been previous corrected is actually a form of trolling? Well now you are aware. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The nom indicates that ""The Dragon" and "The Space Gamer" are not RS," but it has been established by multiple, lengthy precedents here that they are, in fact, RS. Since neither is also the publisher of "Man, Myth, and Magic" they are also independent. In fact many early reviewers were independent writers/reviewers giving them the status of Peer Reviewers much like any journal.  The nominator here can't just make up notability guidelines to cover for his lack of knowledge in this topic domain. Web Warlock (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that one can equivocate "The Space Gamer" to indexed journals from academic publishers such as Journal of the American Medical Association or International Security, I respect your obvious passion for this topic. Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources found by Web Warlock. In addition, I would further note that it was reviewed in Different Worlds #25 and The Space Gamer #60 per: https://index.rpg.net/display-entry-stats.phtml?mainid=6344#reviews Additional potential sources can be found here: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/45774/man-myth-magic BOZ (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the nom's AfDs are reasonable. This one isn't.  Dragaon and Space Gamer are RSes independent of the topic. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known and influential in its day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, reviews in the gaming magazines listed above are sufficient. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and withdraw as nom. I appreciate the work someone did in finding four offline sources from the early 1980s that could never possibly have shown-up in a BEFORE via the usual triumvirate of sources (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News). This article went 15 years without a single source and that has now been remedied which is fantastic. With the addition of White Dwarf, which is on the same editorial par as the old Armchair General or GAMES Magazine and is (IMO) unambiguously RS for this topic, I think this passes the GNG and withdraw the nomination. My thanks to Hobit, et al. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't bear to thank by name the person who first volunteered the Dragon and Space Gamer reviews, eh? Including the issue numbers? Figures. :P Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep With an additional note that a review in Dragon was, in that time and place, basically the gold standard for reviews of RPGs.Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2018 (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.