Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarot de Maléfices

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot de Maléfices[edit]

[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 is an article about an element of a Role-Playing Game. I considered a merge/redirect, but there is so much wrong with both articles I am instead simply proposing a deletion here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article, and searches bring up absolutely nothing in reliable sources. I checked the French Wikipedia to see if there were any non-English sources they might have on the topic, and not only do they not have an article on this Tarot deck, but their article on the actual Maléfices game does not even mention it, so no luck there. The title of this article could potentially be remade into a Redirect to Maléfices, but none of the current content should actually be retained as it is completely unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I too could find no trace of this. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rorshacma. Bermicourt (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively and redirect to Maléfices. I did find two secondary sources after all: One sentence of commentary in the book Game Magic, p. 254, which I have used to reference a corresponding small part in the article. There's also a two-sentence paragraph in this French magazine, p. 37. So I don't think this is enough for an article, but it's not negligible either. Pinging @Rorshacma, Mangoe, and Bermicourt: who had formed their opinion based on "there are absolutely no sources". Daranios (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No my opinion is based on a complete lack of notability. It is not a standalone tarot pack, but a set of cards as part of a game which itself is of doubtful notability and under AFD discussion too. Bermicourt (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: Yeah, sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I should have written that it was previously argued based on "there are absolutely no sources". Anyway, let's see what the other AfD brings. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those couple of sentences don't even come close to establishing notability, and that single source you added can be easily added to the main article without the need of a Merge, particularly because none of the rest of the article should be merged at all. As I said in my initial comment, creating a Redirect to the main Maléfices if fine, though, assuming that it survives its own current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios unless more sources are found. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2022 (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.