Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asticlian Gambit

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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asticlian Gambit

[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)

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). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge per nom. Java Hurricane 08:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Updated to merge on 27 per discussion below. Java Hurricane 03:13, 27 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]
Comment: There was at least one review in White Wolf Magazine that I will try to get a copy of; if so, having at least one review I will argue for at minimum a merge to a Dark Sun-related article. BOZ (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either a merge per BOZ or a redirect to List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_modules#D is appropriate here. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 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]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete based on a review of the sources, fails WP:GNG. Fine with a merge/redirect, just not a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:CaptainEek, User:JavaHurricane, and User:CoffeeWithMarkets, now that a WP:RS review has been found and added to the article with at least a hint at more sources per User:Guinness323, would a "merge" be an acceptable result here? BOZ (talk) 02:51, 27 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]

What content would be merged? The list article is very barebones in nature, with just a list of the module, and whether it ranked as one of the greatest. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you re-read the article since your nomination? A bit more has been added. Guinness323 (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness323, Ye I took a look. My point was that merging to the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules seemed no different than redirecting the page there, as the target page was barebones. But yes I would be fine with a merge as the outcome, that's a reasonable WP:ATD. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, sources currently in the article fail WP:GNG, but there is enough to warrant a merge instead of a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 13 May 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]
Keep per Guinness323's addition of two reviews. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:12, 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.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 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.