Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martian Metals


 * 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 Merge individual product lines to main company. There essentially unanimous agreement that the individual products are not notable by themselves. There's less agreement about the main article. My recommendation to people who would renominate the main article is to wait until the merges are all done, and then re-evaluate how things stand at that point. And, to whoever does the merge, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Martian Metals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A company with very limited notability. Yes, they won an "Origins award" twice, but considering the lack of coverage this generated for the company, one can wonder how important these awards really were.

The reviews of the company products all come from Steve Jackson Games, but considering that Martian Metals made a.o. miniature figures for Ogre (game), a game which was designed by Steve Jackson, these can hardly be considered independent sources (writing reviews about a company which also creates miniatures for your own game...)

Looking for sources produces nothing substantial. The "best" book result only confirms that it existed, and e.g. if one does find an article on the awards, the company again is only mentioned.

The 75 different Google hits contain shops, personal webpages, fora, or fan sites, e.g. one of the best here is this one.

Just looking for "martian metals" gives many unrelated results, but trying to find more sources with a different search like this produced roughly the same results, and still nothing to establish actual notability. Having 14 articles for different "lines" consisting of one to 12 miniatures seems like total overkill.

Also nominated are the following products from this company:

Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

{or}Just to be clear, I was not asserting that Fram's opinion here is "unreasonable", just that it is wrong in this context. Newimpartial (talk)
 * Delete all Myy first thought was that there might be a case for incorporating the content of all these articles into one, but I don't think even this would be be well enough sourced to establish notability. Fancruft in excelsis.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the company itself, as a notable and award-winning miniatures manufacturer. Merge the lines to it and delete the other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the company as the available sources meet GNG. Merge product lines into the company, per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * {ping|Necrothesp|Newimpartial}} I took quite some trouble explaining why the sources don't indicate notability, only for you two to claim without any backing that yes, this meets the GNG. While this may be so, it would help if you could explain why, and not just state it, per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Fram (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Botched the ping, so once again: . Fram (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's simply your opinion. It's my opinion that they do. Notability is subjective and is not governed by hard and fast rules (that's why we have AfD discussions and don't just allow admins to go round deleting anything that doesn't meet strictly defined notability criteria). In my honest opinion, there's far too much desire to delete on Wikipedia at the moment. I entirely agree that having an article for each product line is unnecessary overkill, but the company itself is, in my view, undoubtedly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, no. WP:N is a guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". I have tried to follow it by giving reasons for my opinion, based on WP:RS / WP:V. You disagree without providing any argument to bck up your opinion. Not having hard and fast rules doesn't equal "anything goes". WP:NOTAVOTE explains that " "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. " Opinions may differ, of course, but an opinion without any (expressed) policy- or guideline-based reasoning to back it up carries little weight. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but no guideline is cut and dried. Otherwise, as I said, we'd have no debate here. Whether an article meets notability guidelines is clearly often subjective. My argument is simple and entirely policy-based: The sources and awards demonstrate notability per WP:N. I don't have to pick apart every one to demonstrate why. That would be pointless and you'd still disagree with it, since our opinions of notability clearly differ. Wikipedia is not a bureaucratic machine with rigid rules. Please don't try to make it into one. And please don't try to explain Wikipedia procedures to me. That's patronising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Patronising but necessary, apparently. The sources in the article are not independent, which is a requirement. Which leaves you with two primary sources about the awards. So you may claim that "the sources and awards demonstrate notability per WP:N", but the intro to that page: "We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. " states, and further "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. " Discussion about notability usually centers around "is this source long enough" or "is this routine coverage or not", not simply "I think it is notable so there". Fram (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fram, you appear to be reading the "independence" criterion, shall we say, overly strenuously. If the only sources cited were reviews by the Space Gamer of products produced by Martian Metals on license from SJG, you would be quite correct: those would not be IS. However, most of the reviews here are of miniatures produced by Martian Metals on license from GDW - a direct competitor of SJG in this period - so Space Gamer's reviews of these do not show a conflict of interest. What is more, the Origins wins are documented and do represent a reliable IS in themselves (and also a pinnacle achievement for the firm). This, along with the reference I made to PRESERVE as a reason to Merge of the miniatures lines, is policy-based argumentation and not simply "so there". Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fram's opinion on independence here is reasonable, though not one I share. I'd suggest you both just drop it, neither is really wrong and arguing is unlikely to change either of you opinions. Hobit (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the company itself, which has notability indicated by RS reviews and two industry-recognized Origins Awards. I will also be adding reviews from Dragon, another non-related RS, shortly. Merge the lines to the company's article and delete the other articles. Guinness323 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the main article and merge per the above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * yeah, we don't need all that. Per  Guinness323 keep the company and merge where reasonable.  I'd probably just redirect the lot of them to the company (without underlying deletion) and just let folks merge what's needed/appropriate. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The company clearly existed, and there are some (marginal) RS to prove that, but the mere existence of a thing is not proof of its WP:N. Due to the absence of WP:SIGCOV, this fails our WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources" or WP:RS, and guidelines cannot be ignored for "opinion" without proper justification. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference I can find meets this criteria. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage or notability. Analog Horror, ( Speak ) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could find nothing of significance in doing an extensive WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge product lines into main article. The lines themselves clearly fail notability under any standard as mentioned by other editors above but I'm willing to see the articles/reviews in Dragon as (at least in aggregate) enough evidence of WP:SIGCOV.There's no doubt that Dragon was both independent of SJG and MM and a WP:RS for fantasy gaming at the time. WP:NOTTEMP also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 1 March 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.