Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah: The Roleplaying Game

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 redirect to Mongoose Publishing. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah: The Roleplaying Game

[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)

This unsourced page on a commercial product was originally a redirect to the publisher's page but was resurrected by an IP editor. There are no sources in the article and a basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, JSTOR) finds no WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS. It fails the GNG and should, preferably, be deleted, though I'd be fine seeing the page simply returned to a redirect in the way it once was as a second choice. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found - I found brief notes in Designers & Dragons, and will see what else is available - otherwise restoring to the original redirect per nom is acceptable. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any other coverage which might pass WP:GNG apart from the source in the article. No comment on the single source currently added to the article as I don't have access to it, but "brief notes" may not be substantial coverage, though the lack of other independent coverage concerns me. Fine with a redirect and maybe a blurb at the series page. SportingFlyer talk 17:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, but restoring the redirect is fine. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Does not meet WP:NVG to be a stand-alone page. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 09:38, 19 December 2018 (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.