Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Prudensiae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Via Prudensiae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I doubt that this role-playing game passes the notability guideline. All sources given are primary (the book itself and the author's website). The article itself says that only few copies were printed and that the book is not very widespread. The article is largely a plot summary. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's hard to fullfill the notability demands. The reason for this is that not much is written about the system -- the system is known in Danish role playing society by mouth-to-mouth. I admit it's quite a niche, since it's an alternative system, primarily known in Denmark (which is a small country). I disagree the article is largely a plot summary; it's a description of how the system works. No plot summaries are mentioned. Spiderboy (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to plot summaries, what I wanted to say is that the article mainly summarizes the contents of the book. You may call that a plot summary or game guide, in any case it's not what an encyclopedia article should contain. Rather, the article should summarize what others (i.e., independent reliable sources) write about the book. If these sources don't exist, that is a good indication that the topic is not suited for an encyclopedia. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this book does not meet the notability demands, and that it should probably be deleted as a consequence. No protests from me. 83.91.25.155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree it's hard to fullfill the notability demands. The reason for this is that not much is written about the system -- the system is known in Danish role playing society by mouth-to-mouth. I admit it's quite a niche, since it's an alternative system, primarily known in Denmark (which is a small country). I disagree the article is largely a plot summary; it's a description of how the system works. No plot summaries are mentioned. Spiderboy (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this article is only substantiated by primary sources, which cannot satisfy notability requirements. Reyk YO! 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Danish version of this game was deleted for "Manglende encyklopædisk relevans" (lack of encyclopedic relevance), and I trust them to be better able to determine notability than English speakers. – sgeureka t•c 19:10, 4 December 2008 (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.