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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (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)

I do not see any evidence that this role-playing game meets our notability requirements. Notability was asked for in 2008, and self-published sources were added. These do not show notablity. Third party sources were asked for again in February 2010, and there are still no third party sources. We require this to show notability - without notability Wikipedia might as well be considered an advertising host. Miami33139 (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would constitute notability in your opinion? Would EN World, and/or RPG.net constitute notable sources? TomeWyrm (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Greg Costikyan penned source on Play This Thing. Someoneanother 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Award winning game system. Some references can be found at [1]. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I concur with Hobit - as far as I'm concerned, awards confer notability. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep another concur - I think the mentioned sources are pursuasive and it's def. a high-quality product that has a market - sales numbers would be cool, but they're probably not as easy to come by compared to music titles. Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—As small RPG shops go, this one has some notability. There are independent references available, which seems to be the main issue with satisfying the notability requirement.[2][3][4]—RJH (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Extremely significant and popular RPG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article badly needs better references, but the awards and references listed above clearly show that it is a noteworthy role-playing game. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is poorly written and sourced, but the game is definitely notable. zorblek (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (full disclosure: I am somewhat a fan of the game, but I'm going to try and keep this argument un-biased by that). The ENnies are the biggest awards in RPG gaming, to my knowledge. Having the alpha version of a product win a "gold" award in the ENnies should establish at least basic notability on its own. That Geekdad (Wired) covered it is also significant, Granted, the article needs work. The article needs a lot of work. But I feel that the Wired article and ENnie firmly establish notability, as both are entirely independent sources. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:42, 9 July 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.