Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potion-making: Practice (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Deleting based on the rationale presented by. Thanks for evaluating those sources. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Potion-making: Practice
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AfD, which mainly leant towards deleting, was closed as no consensus. Since then I do not see anything to make any case for notability, and the refs are still all self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There is a Dice Tower review by Tom Vasel which would count as an independent reliable source as does the Forbes Russia review .  also appears reliable. Hobit (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent coverage, just blogs and niche gaming sites. The Forbes piece is a brief mention by a contributor and Meoples is a non-notable WordPress page. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  21:18, 15 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.