Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weird Wars

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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Wars

Non-notable RPG Blowdart | ^talk 16:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N, an engine search resulted in nothing related to the subject of a board game.--S_RX 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be because it's, in fact, a role-playing game. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Searching under RPG found it, but it doesn't seem to have ever merited more than very short listings on comprehensive RPG sites. RayAYang (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following Craw-daddy's changes. Ray Yang (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the seven reviews of the main game and sourcebooks that I located and added to the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty notable and well-supported published setting. Every bit as notable as the countless computer game series we have articles about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming series by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Craw-daddy has found able sources. Edward321 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (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.