Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club


 * 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 to Arc Dream Publishing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Kerberos Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article currently sourced only to a single, questionably RS source. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds only two references in non-RS ("diegardgamefan.com"). Insufficient WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the RSN, Designers and Dragons is a reliable source, so I hope you are not engaged in trolling, Chetsford. The work is discussed in The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture, and a casual search reveals multiple RS reviews. Perhaps you jest? Or is this the Hillfolk AfD all over again? Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "per the RSN, Designers and Dragons is a reliable source" Please see WP:SIGCOV. "a casual search reveals multiple RS reviews" Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Chetsford, SIGCOV considerations never affect whether a source is reliable (which was the consideration you raised in your Nom) but only whether they count for the GNG.
 * As far as reviews are concerned, let's start with this one, which is independent and has effective editorial oversight. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The "flamesrising.com" fanszine is not WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per policy, it is. When professionals are edited (independently) by professionals for publication, the result is a reliable source. Even if the word "fanzine" is on their "About" page. An easily-made rookie mistake. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your passion, but the fan blog "flamesrising.com" is not RS. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Chetsford, now that you have the tools, you should feel some responsibility to reflect WP policy rather than your own ideosynctatic convictions. Per policy,we evaluate sources based on their reputation and their editorial insight, not keywords found on about pages. But thanks for your passion. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I haven't done a thorough search for potential sources yet to form a recommendation, but I did look at the suggested The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture, and that is completely inapplicable for establishing notability. Its just a single sentence mention, in a footnote, and not even the primary topic of the sentence.  This does not demonstrate sufficient coverage of the topic to establish any kind of notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not by itself, but being used as an example in an academic text is certainly an example of recognition that corroborates the notability established through significant mentions in RS.Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Potential Merge to either Wild Talents (role-playing game), if that survives its own AFD, or Arc Dream Publishing if it does not. Both reviews linked above (in the nomination and in Newimpartial's response) do not appear to be from reliable sources - the latter, for example, is a self-professed fan site.  My own searches, while coming up with a few more results, were similarly from non-reliable sources.  While I don't know the level of content that "Designers and Dragons" has covering this supplement, a single reliable source is generally not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG as an independent article.  If Wild Talents (role-playing game) is not deleted during its own current AFD, then merging the information from this supplement would make sense.  If it is, then this could still be potentially Redirected to Arc Dream Publishing, which was its publisher.  Rorshacma (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Flamesrising is a professional publication that has editorial oversight over professional reviewers like Ken Hite; it is not a "Fan site" in the sense of WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the site itself it is a "horror fanzine." It also claims a majority of its writers are volunteers (AKA citizen journalists). The article cited is pseudononymously or anonymously written by someone or something called "spikexan." It solicits members of the public to write for it for free . It publishes no physical address. Finally, the fanzine has not, itself, been sourced to reputable mainstream outlets. These are not indicators of a professional publication. These are, however, indicators of a fan site. Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The site itself reveals that the review was written by Anthony Todd Cash, one of the most respected RPG reviewers around, and edited by Matt McElroy, both of whom have professional publications in the field. It is therefore a RS: you can't be misled by the term "fanzine" (or "blog", as you have in the past) but must look at the actual nature of the publication. Perhaps your allergy to Monica Valentinelli got the better of you. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Anthony Todd Cash" I've never heard of him. "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around" This must be established by RS, not by a Wikipedia editor's declaration. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC) The source cited in the article is certainly reliable. I can't seem to re-find an on-line version of the book, so no meaningful opinion as to if there is enough coverage to meet WP:N, but yeah, the book in question is a fine RS (per discussions at RSN and, well, it being independent, reliable and in-depth). Hobit (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Arc Dream Publishing (as I'd rather not vote to merge to an article that may be deleted shortly anyway). Frankly, even assuming that the two sources mentioned above are reliable (seemingly the two best available), that still leaves this article short of WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, if one source is even questionable, then it falls far short. Waggie (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Arc Dream Publishing per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:10, 11 February 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.