Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zweihänder (RPG)


 * 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.  So Why  07:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Zweihänder (RPG)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Could not find significant mentions in reliable sources. The cited sources are about the Kickstarter rather than the game itself, and aren't sufficiently significant/reliable. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - removed from list of Video games-related deletion discussions, as it is not a video and has no relation to video games. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, I just realized this is a recreation of Articles for deletion/Zweihänder (game), so if any admins could Speedy Delete G4 this, that would be best. And also possibly administer a block for violating WP:COI.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The above comment is not in accord with policy. In particular, it is not appropriate to speedy an article as G4 when the reason given for deletion by most contributors to the AfD was WP:CRYSTAL, and the request for speedy comes after the game has been published (so the article is no longer CRYSTAL). Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the previous AfD was five years ago, and the print edition of the game finally came out this year. The previous article really was CRYSTAL ... Newimpartial (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the new article is equally as non notable as it was before. It's still WP:TOOSOON so the article creator clearly got impatient and wanted to advertise it. He was notified a number of times about WP:COI guidelines, but still went ahead and made the article anyway. The page states, "you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on notability at this point, but you have correctly described what COI editors should do, if not simply rely on non-COI editors to create content using publicly-available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a video game, it is a tabletop role-playing game. The cited sources are Forbes.com, RPGGeek.com and Kickstarter, and is sufficiently significant. MforMoniker (TALK) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (CT)


 * Delete - I know of this game, I do not own it but I have seen it and was aware of its development. That said I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The game is not really getting much attention even in RPG circles, and the number of independent articles on it are extremely low. The Forbes reference is just a general contributor piece that anyone can write, not actually written/endorsed/connected to Forbes (strangely Forbes is allowing more of this sort of stuff now.) The RPGGeek is just a link to a forum discussion and therefore not a RS. DriveThru is just an online store for the selling of RPG PDFs, anyone can get their game sold there. Yes it's sold quite a few copies, on DriveThru a Platinum level product has sold a lot of copies. As someone who spends a lot of time paying attention to the RPG industry I must say that it being in the Platinum bucket with only 457 other products is actually very impressive considering the other products also in that level, but I'm not sure if sales alone is a measure of notability. The others are primary sources.  Canterbury Tail   talk  12:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Merge and redirect to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. The redirect would deal with any promotional issues and would direct anyone looking for this retroclone to a proportional, DUE mention of it within the article on various versions of the game it is retrocloning. Then if the reliable mentions proliferate, it could be split back out in future. Newimpartial (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think it should be merged into Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, as it has no actual connection to WFRP. It is heavily inspired by it but has no official connection in any manner. It would be like merging Battlestar Galactica or Battle Beyond the Stars into the Star Wars article just because they're inspired by it. Similarly I don't believe a redirect could work either for the same reasons. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 04:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourcing is too thin for GNG. Per 's argument, M&R is not suitable as this is a product inspired by the suggested merge target but not officially connected to it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - also note that the only editor to the article appears to have a strong connection to the subject as the only edits they've ever made on Wikipedia have been to promote the game. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:31, 11 October 2017 (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.