Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monastyr


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Monastyr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a game has been devoid of references for the preceding 13 years. A standard BEFORE (Google Books, Google News, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any references. Article does not pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  —AE  '( talk  •  contributions )

' 07:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 07:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 07:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has no references to speak of, but can we find any? Of course, this is a niche game and any refs would be in Polish; the nominator would be well advised to consider this little fact (and at least ask for help on WT:POLAND). Well, pl wiki links a lot of articles about the game on (popular Polish game portal, pl:Poltergeist (polter.pl)). Are those sufficient, hmmm. Interesting issue - would articles about Warhammer or such published in White Dwarf be sufficient for notability if no other coverage existed? (At least polter.pl is independent of Monastyr publisher, I think). Well, I'd think an article about let's say 'how to make a dwarf character in Monastyr' may not be good enough, but reviews would suffice to establish a game system notability (analogical to video games). Here are some reviews of the game:  (polter.pl),  (lesser known Polish gaming portal),  (another Polish gaming portal, pl:Gildia.pl),  (yet one more, pl:Gry-Online). I stop here - at least three of them are on well known (in Poland) major gaming/culture/geek sites (Polish equivalents to English sites like Kotaku, etc.) This seems sufficient to establish notability (PS. There are also reviwws of Monastyr modules/expansions, etc. like  in pl:Esensja...). PPS. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this RPG system is much more notable then most individual D&D modules... but the sources are in Polish. Be careful with such nominations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw them in my before search. They don't appear to be RS. I think the comparison of a couple of these reader contribution sites to Kotaku may be a bit ambitious, IMO. Chetsford (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For Polish-language speakers who don't know of Kotaku and other English sites, polter, gildia and such fill in that niche, also reviewing and discusisng Polish-language products that don't get any press abroad for obvious language reasons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A couple of points here. First, in case anybody questions it, yes, non-English sources are perfectly fine. Next, even though policy is that sources only have to exist, not actually be in the article, I implore people to go ahead and add them to the article. They don't do anybody any good if they're not in the article.
 * Keep per Piotrus, especially if more sources can be found (particularly in the native Polish), otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Polish-language sources are sufficient. Meets GNG. As usual, this nom has relied overmuch on the sourcing that exists in the article, contra policy, rather than the potential sourcing per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of role-playing games. The sources cited so far amount to typical, if extensive, mentions in role-playing game forums and websites. They will report on anything that sees the light. There is little independent coverage establishing independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

But, the real reason I'm relisting this is because I don't see much analysis of how good the sources are. I'm not into gaming, and I don't read Polish, so it's hard for me to judge them for myself. I need to rely entirely on the discussion here, and there's not enough analysis of the sources for me to make a reasonable call either way. So, please spend the next week explaining whether or not the sources are good enough, and why.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, Piotrus is a native Polish speaker, so I will trust him. And in my experience, he is far from an RPG-inclusionist, so I trust him in this case even more for that reason. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, this was closed as Keep, but apparently 6 hours early even when you have a unanimous set of responses is some kind of procedural gaffe, so here we are with a relist instead. BOZ (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I should note I like RPGs (not that it prevents me from nominating RPG-related topics for deletion when they fail notability). But I did provide an analysis of the sources, by noting they reviews are published by possibly notable Polish game-related portals. The reviews seem to be independent (not paid for by the game publisher, outside of course the normal practice of sending a book or game copy to the reviewer; something that is a norm all across the board, up to and including academic book reviews). As I said, the reviews seem to be on par with sources usually accepted in review of video games. I don't see what else would be needed. The subhect received several independent reviews in reliable outlets. If one argues those are niche outlets, well, so is, TBH, Kotaku and most others, what's not niche? Plus, niche seems to be totally fine for video games (see WikiProject Video games/Sources for what I mean when I refer to video game-related acceptable sources). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 27 September 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.