Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gamers: Hands of Fate

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. Weak keep or no consensus, but the outcome is the same. Sandstein 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamers: Hands of Fate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM – Kickstarter is of course a sell-added project on a fundraiser and the citation from BoardGameGeek is a self-published source on a forum. From my research, I did find out that this was supposedly the second most funded project on KickStarter from Business Insider [1] but that is not a criteria for WP:NFILM (and only a passing mention at that), and one article by The Mary Sue. Still not enough to pass NFILM yet. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per the reliable review from Devonian Wombat, this now satisfies NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: more complete than many and improvable —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked news search and already there are more available sources. All that remains is editorial effort. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Philoserf: If you do not mind, could you post the sources here for me to see? Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
see find sources above. right below the heading. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further. This is more than about notability of a film. This has notability related to the role-playing game community as well. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. The project was not notified. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources show notability, even if they're not yet in the article. Notability is not affected by the current quality of the article. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls short of WP:NFILM. Other than The Mary Sue, there don't appear to be any reliable reviews of the film, having checked its Rotten Tomatoes page and a few pages of internet search results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The review in The Mary Sue appears to be the only review that appeared in a reliable, secondary source, which falls short of passing WP:NFILM. All other sources I can find are just passing mentions of the film, and nothing more. Several of the Keep arguments above are arguing that there are sources not included in the article that show notability, but none have been provided here, and I have not been able to find any myself. It could possibly be redirected to The Gamers (film)#Sequels and spin-offs where it is already mentioned, but as that article, itself, is completely absent of reliable sources as well, doing that might just be kicking the can down the road until a potential AFD for that article in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'll accept Devonian Wombat's assessment of the German site being a reliable source, in which case this film just barely passes WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in sources, no particularly notable cast or crew, no awards, little to no evidence of actual impact. We have articles on short films with a more lasting impact. Dimadick (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question the article could be improved, but I believe it is notable. Guinness323 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for building up the reception section! BOZ (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to just barely pass WP:NFILM, the review in The Mary Sue contributes to notability, and Teilzeithelden appears to have an editorial team, so I would also consider its review reliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2021 (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.