Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamemaster's screen (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.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamemaster's screen (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)

Has no notability in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG completely. The last AfD was a laughable pile-on of WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes with no supporting evidence. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could probably be merged with Dungeon Masters Screen, which is about a specific Gamemaster's screen. ApLundell (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge suggested above seems like the best course. Artw (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per below Artw (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• clear keep Lots of moderate academic sources [1], [2], [3] t refer to gamemaster's screens and in some cases appear to define the term. [4] is a work of fiction that defines the term and provides context. So if you want "traditional" sources, there you go. Both academic papers and fiction. But something like [5] is a video from a well-known subject-area expert Matthew Mercer on a 2 Million person channel that describes in huge detail how to use it (so yeah, that's a reliable source) published by a reliable publisher. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All tangential mentions, nothing actually focused on the topic of a game-master's screen. It was essentially just a broad search for anything that remotely mentioned the topic. Works of fiction are obviously not reliable sources for a non-fiction encyclopedia, even if it has a definition of it. Having to resort to such a source shows how shaky the notability is. Youtube could be used, but not in the absence of actual print sources devoted to the topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree they aren't great sources. They simply show that the term is used (and defined) in academic contexts as well as independent fictional ones. But with respect to the source that is clearly in-depth, reliable and independent, could you point me to the guideline or policy that requires print? I'm not familiar with that requirement in our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments of Hobit; failing that, at worst a merge, and it makes more logical sense to merge to Role-playing game terms. BOZ (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability exists as demonstrated by Hobit. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as demonstrated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the article was just completely rewritten with new sources, so hopefully that helps too. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging ApLundell and Artw regarding my previous comment as well. BOZ (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. Artw (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Role-playing game terms. Of the sources currently in the article, only the "Heroic Worlds" book is actually a valid source for the topic. The remainder are either just product listings (or, in some cases, the product themselves), which are not actual reliable, secondary sources, or reviews on specific individual examples rather than anything talking about the concept in general. The references presented in this AFD, with the exception of the youtube video, are extremely passing mentions that do not discuss the concept in depth at all. Altogether, the information that can actually be derived from the reliable, secondary sources is not enough to sustain an independent article, but enough for it to be covered in a broader article, such as the one suggested by BOZ. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The new inclusion of two independent reviews of the earliest commercial versions are indications of notability of the brand new item. The negative review calling commercial screens a waste of money speaks to the increasing ubiquity of the item.Guinness323 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks to Guinness323's excellent additions. Refs to Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games and Designers & Dragons show that there's independent academic interest in the subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is simply a WP:SNOW WP:PILEON. Hobit has revealed why this is a keep. Wm335td (talk) 18:42, 9 January 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.