Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiths and Pantheons (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.

Faiths and Pantheons

Faiths and Pantheons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please improve your copy-paste nomination (if this is done, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). "No meaning" is not a valid deletion rationale. The article has a reception section which cites three sources and the nominator should explain why they are "fan sources" and why they are bad. Frankly, this article may fail GNG but the current rationale is just so bad the nominator needs a friendly warning to learn how to submit AfD articles and how to write proper rationales. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify keeping the article and a search found no other sources likely to add to notability. Wikipedia for too long has allowed unregulated article creation for us to be in any position to assume that the existence of an article in any way suggests the subject might be notable. We need to end all proceduralism that ends up presegving sub-standard articles for non-content reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per below comments, or failing that merge to
  WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP Reliable sources review it, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Copy and pasting a meaninglessly invalid reason in so many AFDs you started at once is ridiculous. I think you just went through proding dozens of articles without actually looking at them, then those that were deprodded you sent to AFD right away with the same bad deletion rational. Dream Focus 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - This article was kept in an AFD less than a year ago, and the nomination has zero rationale or policy based argument as to why that result should be overturned or re-examined. The citing of
  WP:GAMEGUIDE makes no sense in this case, as the article is on a real-world product, not on how to play the game itself. Claiming the article has "no meaning" is rather nonsensical. Rorshacma (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Contemporary sources reviewed the book & the article does not go into heavy game mechanic details (so it's not a
  WP:GAMEGUIDE situation). I want to second Dream Focus's comment above that you used the same copy-paste rationale on dozens of PROD nominations before using it in AfD nominations. In the future, please take the time to review an article's sources & then (if you think it has failed notability, etc) customize your PROD/AfD nomination for the article at hand. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I don't see how any of the points of
  WP:NBOOK, right? Daranios (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete - I am skeptical that
  WP:V, and this one has apparently been offline for at least a decade, meaning it was offline when it was added as a reference. The WotC source is not independent. That leaves a single source, which isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hopefully I can add something here besides disagreeing: Thankfully Fictional Reality was archived, even though it is somewhat hard to find. Issue 09 can be looked at and veryfied by anyone here as a pdf. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that really helps. While this is an improvement, after looking at the review and the issue, I think this is a very flimsy source. This magazine was clearly a passion project for those involved, but the flip-side of this is that parts of it are very amateurish. Some of the reviews have named authors, but most don't, including the review of this book. Lacking information on this magazine's reputation, editorial policy, etc., I don't think this source is sufficient to establish notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with other folks that mass cut-and-paste nominations are bad, especially since this passed through AfD a year ago. The Fictional Reality source is definitely good; it's a full page review in an independent magazine. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2020 (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.