Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Lords Tribebook

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 Werewolf: The Apocalypse books. Sandstein 13:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Lords Tribebook

[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)

Lacks notability. The Prod for this article was removed when a second source was added, but this source, "Le Grog", looks to me like a semi-wiki (anyone can become a contributor, but needs approval, not just direct editing like a true wiki), and is a completist website, not a reliable, distinctive source. This looks to me comparable to, say, IMDb (or Discogs or Boardgamegeek or Findagrave), which is a very interesting and useful website, but where inclusion gives no notability at all, as it is a site aiming to be complete, not a site discussing only the important, impactful, exceptional, ... elements.

There are no GBook hits of any essence about this book, only mentions in lists of all books, and there are only 65 Google hits in total, which is not a lot for such geeky stuff which is normally well represented online.[1] Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sources, or merge to List of Werewolf: The Apocalypse books per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above vote. Appears to fail WP:GNG for now Catorce2016 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The subject appears to be a WP:V pass based on the referencing, but only one of the available references appears to be an WP:RS so WP:GNG not passed. WP:PRESERVE points us to merging this to an appropriate target. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there are certainly other print sources besides Arcane, but per the goal of building an encyclopaedia the best practice is to consolidate the treatment of such books - which themselves were never intended to stand alone - into more substantial articles. On the other hand, per WP:PRESERVE AND WP:BEFORE C.4, there are no grounds for deletion as the article contains sourced information and a valid Merge target exists. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV; insufficient RS to allowing sourcing in a merge Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There need only be one source meeting WP:V. Per policy, that is. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 4 February 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.