The result was redirect to Forgotten Realms#2000–2008. Sandstein 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Doesn't pass notability per WP:PRODUCT. Mika1h ( talk) 12:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sourcesper the CSC page, so WP:LISTN is failed. No any other notability criteria, such as WP:PRODUCT, are met at all, with currently no refs (nor other any ones I can find on Google, Books, Scholar, News); though, WP:ATD is sensible IMO, but there's nothing much to preserve here. VickKiang ( talk) 03:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
[in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it?, this may be true if it's in an article with some refs, but with no refs at all, IMHO I strongly disagree with your keep vote. Many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 09:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
[in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it?Thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Forgotten Realms#2000–2008. Sandstein 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Doesn't pass notability per WP:PRODUCT. Mika1h ( talk) 12:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sourcesper the CSC page, so WP:LISTN is failed. No any other notability criteria, such as WP:PRODUCT, are met at all, with currently no refs (nor other any ones I can find on Google, Books, Scholar, News); though, WP:ATD is sensible IMO, but there's nothing much to preserve here. VickKiang ( talk) 03:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
[in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it?, this may be true if it's in an article with some refs, but with no refs at all, IMHO I strongly disagree with your keep vote. Many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 09:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
[in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it?Thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)