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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Another niche D&D setting, this one appears to be self-published by a game designer (Monte Cook) who frankly may merit his own AfD (but one thing at a time). The article does not even make clear what works the setting is composed of, outside am ambiguous section 'sources' listing three self-published books. 99% of the article is unreferenced plot summary (aka WP:FANCRUFT), reception is only 1%, and said reception is composed of the claim that "It has received good reviews" sourced to two unreliable fan-reviews at WP:SPS sites (RPGnet and slashdot...). The only suggestion of notability in the article is the claim that the work won an ENnie Award (actually, according to that list, it won 4 - out of ~2 two dozen categories). Not sure if this award (awards) is sufficient to keep this (nothing in the article about the award suggests it is particularly significant for the gaming scene), my BEFORE shows nothing else that we can use as a source, so if we were to enforce WP:V we would be left with a substub catalogue entry and a sentence on ENies. Perhaps WP:ATD-R to the designer? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - won the Ennie award which is the top award in the roleplaying industry for product of the year. This alone makes it notable. I do agree the article could do with a bit of an overhaul though, howevre WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Canterbury Tail talk 04:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Canterbury Tail "top award in the roleplaying industry" - according to whom? This claim is not even in our article about the awards. I'd be happy to accept it if you can find a RS for this claim (and I encourage you to add it to the article). Which was prodded just last year ([1]), hardly encouraging thinking this is a major award. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It actually won TWO Ennie awards, if you read the linked pdf. Slashdot and RPGnet are both longstanding sites (20+ years?) with editorial control, and the reviews are both posted by staff members, not random bloggers. So GNG is met--no objection to cleanup and expansion of the reception section, no objection to looking for and incorporating other coverage. I just don't see a good merge target: Monte Cook would be better than deletion, but that article needs to be buffed--the guy's been around the hobby since I started 40+ years ago, and worked on some major products. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll ping @VickKiang for 3O in the reliability of these, as he is experienced with them. However, Slashdot is a social news website where "Summaries of stories and links to news articles are submitted by Slashdot's own users". The article appears to be a blog ("Posted by Zonk"). Two RSN discusions do not suggest the site is seen as reliable (1, 2). Ditto for RPGnet: "users have contributed numerous reviews of board and card games.". It is considered unreliable by Board games WP (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources#Unreliable) and self-published in related RSN discussions: 1, 2. So right now I very much doubt we are meeting the requirement of being covered in-depth by reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Users could submit anything to slashdot, but what got posted was decided by moderators. If Zonk posted it, Zonk was site staff at the time it was posted. Reviewing both sources, I don't see the discussion of other sources from those sites as normative: they read like RS'es, and I'm not accepting uncritically others' criticism of the sites. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list of Ennie Award nominees and winners for 2007 can be found at https://ennie-awards.com/portfolio-item/2007-nominees-and-winners/ . Ptolus won four gold medals and an honorable mention. Guinness323 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It being Christmas Eve, it may take me a few days to overhaul this article, but so far I have found a full page review in Coleção Dragon Slayer; an interview with Cook about this setting in Polyhedron, a 3-page interview with Cook that delves into Ptolus in Coleção Dragão Brasil; references to the game in Appelcline's Designers & Dragons; a review in Inquest Gamer; another review in RPG Review; etc. Some of these will also be used in Cook's own wiki. Give me a few days to do the family thing and then I will get on this. Guinness323 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guinness323 Sounds good, i you think you can save this I don't mind withdrawing this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as noted, there are definitely enough sources to make this notable. Won't happen until later this week, though.Guinness323 (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz Can you close this as withdrawn/keep? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all of the above. BOZ (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2023 (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.