- 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 delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Witchlord
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Witchlord ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. One review when it was new, and nothing since. Even among obscure 1980s board games, this one must be near the bottom of the list, and doesn't even generate attention at fora or fan blogs. A meagre 12 Google hits... Since the comlpany behind it doesn't have an article either, there is no logical redirect target, so delete it is. Fram ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete -Outside of general database entries like BGG that only reprint official descriptions from the publisher, I am finding no other coverage outside of the "capsule review" already included as a reference. And, the single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. As neither the publisher nor creator appear to be notable themselves, there is no valid targets for redirects or mergers. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't pass the GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 04:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The review on BGG amuses me greatly. And as much as I think we should keep things like this here, it clearly doesn't meet WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 06:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Witchlord
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Witchlord ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. One review when it was new, and nothing since. Even among obscure 1980s board games, this one must be near the bottom of the list, and doesn't even generate attention at fora or fan blogs. A meagre 12 Google hits... Since the comlpany behind it doesn't have an article either, there is no logical redirect target, so delete it is. Fram ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete -Outside of general database entries like BGG that only reprint official descriptions from the publisher, I am finding no other coverage outside of the "capsule review" already included as a reference. And, the single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. As neither the publisher nor creator appear to be notable themselves, there is no valid targets for redirects or mergers. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't pass the GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 04:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The review on BGG amuses me greatly. And as much as I think we should keep things like this here, it clearly doesn't meet WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 06:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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.