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.
Fails
WP:GNG. Has been entirely empty since creation in 2011 and has had no sources for as long. Googling turned up only links to buy it, no substantial reviews (except for on a few blogs/forums).
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - A huge variety of products related to D&D have been created over the years and the vast bulk have little to no notability. This is a great example. I agree. Deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep In addition to the White Wolf article, there is also a review in the British games magazine The Last Province (Issue #3, p. 10). I am searching for a copy in order to quote directly from it.
Guinness323 (
talk)
03:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd still prefer outright deletion, but a merger result would be one that I wouldn't object to. It's fine as long as the content is properly sourced, as you've mentioned, which is logical enough. Thanks for asking.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
02:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as reception in two secondary source has been discovered, the miniumum suggested by
WP:GNG. As far as I can see, several deletion votes have not said why these secondary sources should not be preserved. That said, I would obviously prefer a merge over deletion. At least the reception section would be there to preserve.
Daranios (
talk)
14:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm still a delete after the addition of the reviews, as I'm not convinced the sources are reliable (one is from a website which tries to catalogue every RPG campaign and welcomes user contributions, the other is from a site which is trying to sell you the game directly.)
SportingFlyerT·C16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Outside of the White Wolf "capsule review", the other added references are questionable as reliable sources, at best. One, as noted above, is simply an online store trying to sell the product, and the other only contains a summary of the plot and contents of the book, with no actual review or analysis of the product. The book is already present in the main list of modules, though, and merging in the information on its reception in White Wolf would be appropriate.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:28, 13 May 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.
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.
Fails
WP:GNG. Has been entirely empty since creation in 2011 and has had no sources for as long. Googling turned up only links to buy it, no substantial reviews (except for on a few blogs/forums).
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - A huge variety of products related to D&D have been created over the years and the vast bulk have little to no notability. This is a great example. I agree. Deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep In addition to the White Wolf article, there is also a review in the British games magazine The Last Province (Issue #3, p. 10). I am searching for a copy in order to quote directly from it.
Guinness323 (
talk)
03:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd still prefer outright deletion, but a merger result would be one that I wouldn't object to. It's fine as long as the content is properly sourced, as you've mentioned, which is logical enough. Thanks for asking.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
02:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as reception in two secondary source has been discovered, the miniumum suggested by
WP:GNG. As far as I can see, several deletion votes have not said why these secondary sources should not be preserved. That said, I would obviously prefer a merge over deletion. At least the reception section would be there to preserve.
Daranios (
talk)
14:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm still a delete after the addition of the reviews, as I'm not convinced the sources are reliable (one is from a website which tries to catalogue every RPG campaign and welcomes user contributions, the other is from a site which is trying to sell you the game directly.)
SportingFlyerT·C16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Outside of the White Wolf "capsule review", the other added references are questionable as reliable sources, at best. One, as noted above, is simply an online store trying to sell the product, and the other only contains a summary of the plot and contents of the book, with no actual review or analysis of the product. The book is already present in the main list of modules, though, and merging in the information on its reception in White Wolf would be appropriate.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:28, 13 May 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.