Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis & Allies Miniatures (land version)

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. notability is derived from demonstrating sources and this hasnt happened so the delete votes outweigh the keep arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axis & Allies Miniatures (land version)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference is a forum post, and all the links in the article are to sites that sell these things. Not notable enough for inclusion, and borderline advertising Patton^t/c 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. My searching didn't bring up anything either. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deleting this page leaves the job half done. If you want to tidy up the coverage of the Axis & Allies Miniatures pages, please do the whole job. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Axis .26 Allies Miniatures. Fences&Windows 02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well written, comprehensive reference. --AStanhope (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been criticized for voting keep here. I didn't realize that the Wikipedia Deletionist pathology has extended to bullying people who vote to keep articles now. Regardless, the criticism misread my comment "comprehensive reference" to mean that I thought the article was well referenced (cited). This is not what I meant by "comprehensive reference." The article itself is a "comprehensive reference" for the topic at hand. It exists, it collates a great deal of disparate information, it is structured properly and it represents significant editing time. If I happened to be someone who was interested in "Axis and Allies Miniatures," surely I would be pleased that this article exists as a COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE. These are all perfectly valid reasons in of themselves to keep an article. See Jimbo Wales: [1] --AStanhope (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only a deletionist in that I'm not an inclusionist, and this isn't intended as bullying. 1) Jimbo is subordinate to policy and guideline, and 2) a throwaway comment by Jimbo is definitely subordinate. The base problem with this article is that it fails to pass WP:GNG, and your comments and actions do nothing to address this, instead just helpfully saying how useful the article is. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Astanhope--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources for references, and is also essentially a gameguide in the manner it lists every possible unit. Seems like somerthing that should be on the official A&A website - and probably is. Skinny87 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Astanhope - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2009 (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.