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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mazes and Minotaurs

[edit]
Mazes and Minotaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely nothing establishing notability of this topic. It's a free online indie role-playing game with only minor mentions on the web. Certainly nothing like mainstream or expert coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your head, but they're not encyclopedic, which is the important part for being listed here. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as this game is also published as an e-book, we have in WP:NOTABILITY (books) Rpg.net is an important source in the context of an article about RPGs. You might notice from its own article that it is itself considered notable enough for Wikipedia, besides And besides several articles in rpg.net, a quick google search unveils other articles on similar rpg sites. It is scheduled for OwlCon XXIX (referenced here) and Origins GameFair (referenced here). I think it is important to rate Notability in context, which is clearly at issue here. The context here is Indie RPGs, and in that realm sources like RPG.net are particularly important. The fact that M&M is referenced by sites and associations which are considered notable for Wikipedia standards is notable. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the bold "Save" from the beginning of this comment so that it doesn't look like you are trying to vote twice. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would not have mattered anyway since Afd discussions are not votes. Outcome is based on the merit of the arguments provided. Putting Save or Delete in the comment would, I think, help a reviewer find arguments for each side more easily and is their main purpose. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few people talking about something on the Internet means nothing when trying to show something should have an encyclopedia article. By your standards every fart joke in the world should have its own listing. That's not how things work. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Futurismic article is here. I don't think articles on established websites for a subject are the same as "a few people talking on the internet." And anyway, your criteria do not match WP:WEB, which would be the relevant policy here. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several more reviews have been brought to my attention, so I am linking them for consideration at least on impact of the game in its field, if they cannot be considered sources. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category