Deletion of Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination)

Comment: There are 24 sources, not a single one of which are  of the topic, therefore, this could not reasonably remain as a standalone article while preserving compliance with the GNG. My personal BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, and newspapers.com fails to find any further coverage.  and  applies. Merge as a concise couple sentences to Dungeons & Dragons is probably okay, though first preference is for delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: why has this discussion been relisted 3 times?  Debate has now been open for 25 days.  Per , debates should in general only be relisted twice, unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise. I see none here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:RELIST)

Comment: in this case the Merge !votes look pretty silly to me. The article offers many reliable sources independent of the game publishers, which establishes Notability, and the GAMEGUIDE section of  does not apply in such cases, as Zxcvbnm should know by now. In fact, the nominator suggested that the sources for notability needed to be independent of the ''game'' rather than independent of the game ''publisher'', which shows complete ignorance of WP policy in this area
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:NOT)

Comment: On seeing the !votes I'd hoped to close this discussion (and perhaps a better NAC or admin still might) , but there seems a lack of actually justified arguments by the Keep crew and an absence of full  checks throughout. Items are so bound up that they're slightly difficult to filter out from the general coverage of D&D. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zuseH4RrliQC&lpg=PA259&dq=%22dungeons%20and%20dragons%22%20items%20-wikipedia&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q=%22dungeons%20and%20dragons%22%20items%20-wikipedia&f=false D&D for dummies, Magic Items gives detailed coverage in a fairly reliable form (strict editorial control and source checking on the books). Next to consider are probably the reliable game sites - those generally accepted to provide reviews (usually the way of establishing ) should also be deemed reliable/independent for any articles on the topic. E.g. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/06/the-20-most-wtf-magical-items-in-dungeons-dragons/ Kotaku The 20 Most WTF Magical Items In Dungeons & Dragons
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:NGAME)