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 keep. Noting that ad hominem comments are deprecated in deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SORAG[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sadly I cannot say this is notable, I would say merge with Paranoia Press. But they do not have an article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reviews from two independent sources, and there is a third that I will try to get access to. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Keep Two or three independent reviews is a clear GNG pass. Nom is making spurious, Idontlikedit AfD nominations and wasting our time.Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used to own a copy, so it is not a case of Idontlike it (though to be honest I really only liked the Zhodoni Scout deck plans), it was (even at the time) a minor publication. It was never notable. Reviews (as far as I am aware) are not usually enough to establish notability, in depth coverage is.Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when editors claim a thing is not notable and ignore the very sources doing the noting. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are in-depth coverage. If you don't think reviews can eatablish notability, then you shouldn't be nominating for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should I do?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read and learn. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either make a constructive suggestions or do not comment on other users on an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to refrain from asking me questions you don't want answered, then. Newimpartial (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the subject of this RFD, so what I am supposed to do is not relevant. Comment on content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually an AfD and yes, let's. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we have 3 reviews published when it was released, and evidence of lasting notability?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be "lasting", it just needs to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent sources are notable. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2018 (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.