Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Everlasting (role-playing game) (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 procedural close per SD0001. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Everlasting (role-playing game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been to AfD before, with no consensus. As it's been sat in CAT:NN for twelve years, I think it deserves to have its notability established one way or the other. There were good arguments put forward on both sides in last AfD, but I don't think that it quite meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - isn't it uncustomary to re-nominate just six weeks after the last discussion was closed? Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, this seems too soon for a rerun. In the previous AfD, Mazca said, "The game clearly exists somewhere on the borderline of relevant notability guidelines. Participants have discussed what sources are available in some depth, and seem to have reached good-faith disagreement over exactly where the line is drawn. No consensus has been reached over a very long discussion period." I think that six weeks later, it's likely that the same people will participate, with more or less the same result. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with the above. This is too soon after a particularly long AFD (it remained active for close to a month) that resulted in a no consensus.  I don't see it reaching any different conclusion a month later, and suggest this AFD be procedurally closed for the present time.  Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator it's disappointing that the comments thus far have not focused on the notability at all. This article has sat with a notability tag for 12 years. That's ridiculously long - this is not too soon but incredibly late for a consensus to be found. We can do that, if we focus on its notability and encourage participation rather than shutting down the discussion, which clearly still needs to be had. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the notability tag on the article as I don't think any article that has survived an AfD should retain that tag. There has already been a long AfD relisted twice which received ample participation, so I don't get what you mean by "shutting down discussion". Suggest a procedural close here. SD0001 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 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.