Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total party kill

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 Role-playing game terms. And partial merge. Of course, the target page can also be nominated for deletion. Sandstein 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total party kill

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

All sources broken, couldn't find many replacements online. Generally seems like limited demographic parlance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I have a feeling the sources - all dead links - either never existed, or aren't the type of thing that would support the existence of an article... Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia policy requires that content be verified by reliable sources. It specifically does not require that those sources be available to any and every editor; see Verifiabilty § Access to sources. The sources cited here include dead links, but they do appear to have been published at some point, in which case they would presumably qualify as sources. That said, all those sources are apparently a game developer's blog that uses but does not discuss the phrase in question. That makes them insufficient to establish notability or verify the information in the article. Dead links don't come into it. The question is, do appropriate sources exist (either online or IRL)? Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Role-playing game terms.. Tough. The term has certainly entered popular culture, but there are very few reliable sources. This is the best I could find: RPG Handbook - Getting Started. Thistle Games. 1 September 2013. pp. 157–. ISBN 978-1-908798-15-2.. There are some mentions in passing, but no discussion of origins, detailed meaning, etc. Given the lack of quality sources, it is tough to see how this term passes WP:GNG. I suggest a merge and redirect to Role-playing game terms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, makes sense...but do we have faith in the continued existence of that redirect target too? It's terribly sourced, relatively barren, and tagged for cleanup since 2010... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 7 March 2017 (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.