Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Medievia (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:09, 12 December 2019 editRet.Prof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits Medievia: Keep← Previous edit Revision as of 13:57, 13 December 2019 edit undoCzar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,303 edits Medievia: ?Next edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] (]) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] (]) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
* '''Keep:''' I tend to agree with ]. The article is notable. - ] (]) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC) * '''Keep:''' I tend to agree with ]. The article is notable. - ] (]) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*: Agree with what claim, though? The book citations are cursory mentions and the only source with depth is the undergrad thesis. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 13:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:57, 13 December 2019

Medievia

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Medievia (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)

All we have on this topic are four sentences from three listings. A search brought only primary and unreliable source material. Not enough to meet the significant coverage criteria of the GNG: We can't write an encyclopedia that does justice to the topic with this little information. The entire "controversy" section has no mention in reliable, secondary sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, since List of MUDs only accepts entries with their own articles. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"Three books" = three mentions from listings in three books (listicles of the 1990s). That citation is the same story: A brief mention pulled from an undergrad thesis (Zen 2003). Can't write an article on this topic without delving into primary source original research, as in the material you restored to the article. czar 22:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Undergrad theses occasionally get it right, one way we know when that happens is they get cited and quoted in a journal, which is what happened here. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
My bad—wasn't a thesis but a 100-level course paper. czar 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Categories: