This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: board, card, etc. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Games: board, card, etc. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)
Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete both of them.
Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.
In the spirit of WP:GD I'm going to suggest that we pursue a constructive alternative such as improving or cleaning up the article. Two main reasons (1) Being one of the Samuel Adams founders both within the beverage field and just generally is definitely a major contribution. It looks he was not the frontman, but, indeed, he's been recognized by multiple secondary sources as being a founder and his involvement in various beverage investments is notable enough to be topic of headlines. As you probably know, media outlets have full control over headlines, which means that these media outlets viewed his involvement as "the story". On a more basic level, Samuel Adams is also billion dollar major conglomerate, it's widely recognized, and is part of the American social milieu (2) I digged into other secondary sources and there's quite a few other significant achievements such as being one of the people who started GT Interactive, which launched DOOM (a major video game) (3) This nomination was a careless mistake on my part so it's kind of a fluke nomination. My apologies again to all for that bonehead error and for wasting folks time reviewing this!
re: Harry Rubin (virologist) Even though I intended to nominate it, I also now lean towards keeping it. Mostly because his achievements within his specific domain are quite significant.
RedirecttoCentaurs in popular culture - The non-primary sourced material is extremely minimal, being largely either the same very obvious "Centaurs are based on mythological Centaurs" statement that was deemed insufficient in the last AFD, or a couple of sentences in what are essentially game guides. Some are literally just one-sentence mentions stating that "Centaurs are half-horse", making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing to indicate that the D&D specific version of centaurs either pass the WP:GNG, nor are any more notable than any of the other entries in the Centaurs in popular culture list that would justify making the existing entry any longer. Rorshacma (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma; once the excessive details from D&D handbooks is discounted, there is not enough coverage for a separate article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accepts (and obviously many do not) that the topic is 'centaur', then the D&D sources are themselves non-trivial reliable sources independent of 'centaur' as a topic. Now, that may take a bit to wrap one's mind around, but centaur is a public domain concept, used in plenty of contemporary fiction and entertainment media. Why is what Gary Gygax & co. wrote problematic, but what Rick Riordan wrote acceptable? It is nothing more than an artifact of how the topic of 'centaur' is split up into multiple articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on centaurs in Rick Riordan's books, I would presumably vote to redirect that as well. I don't see how "D&D didn't invent centaurs" is supposed to prove "D&D handbooks are independent coverage of the topic of centaurs in D&D". Walsh90210 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough non-handbook (and non-WotC) sources have been presented that I'm striking my redirect vote. Some merge might still be reasonable; that could be proposed later. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [1] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally in the basic description of Valnet sources in the section (The paragraph above the individual cells). There's case by case uses per each source's use clause (Namely TheGamer being considered reliable and stuff like Android Police and MakeUseOf being considered generally unreliable in all use cases) but most sources that fall into the marginally reliable category tend to fall under the umbrella description I quoted above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus as of yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
