Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Marriner-Dodds


 * 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert Marriner-Dodds

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent source. Searches turned up the reason why. There aren't any.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Other than the "New Scientist" mention, no other notable sources. Blogs, websites etc. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and a little bit confused about why this page is up for deletion? I am not arguing either way, but I hope to learn from my mistakes going forward. I created two articles at the same time about similar people and using roughly the same amount of sources from the same places. One was approved immediately, but this one has been back and fourth from draft space to published space and is now being considered for deletion. There are independent references from news websites New Scientist, Forbes, ENWorld, Nerdbot, The Gamer, Geeknative, Tribality, and 80LV. There are also independent references from industry websites Board Game Geek and RPG Geek as well as appearances and interviews with Marriner-Dodds on podcasts Mammoth Gamescast, Game Store Prophets, and Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG Talk. I can understand why the podcast interviews and appearances may not count as good sources and I can remove those without an issue, but I do not understand why the others are not considered? Again I want to stress that I am NOT arguing in either direction for this article, but I'd really appreciate the chance to learn what I did wrong, and if possible to move the article back into draft space for continued improvements? Cllrphil 10:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cllrphil (talk • contribs)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - there are some good sources, although experienced editors know that Forbes is basically a crappy blog on paper. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * weak keep this gets into weird not-inherited arguments. In addition to the main source, the nerdbot and The Gamer sources are probably enough.  Feel like PR bits mostly.  eh. Hobit (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes nerdbot reliable? It's niche enough it doesn't have an entry. Likewise, The Gamer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gamer pretty clearly has editorial control. . Nerdbot claims editorial control . Do you see any coverage you think is mistaken or otherwise have evidence either is not reliable?  Hobit (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not enough to meet NBIO. Coverage is passing/niche. Designing a single game that hasn't won any major awards and getting a WP:INTERVIEW in few niche gaming zines or like does not make one encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:46, 24 December 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.