Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volo's Guide to the Dalelands

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 Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. czar 05:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volo's Guide to the Dalelands[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 a WP:GNG fail. There are no independent sources in this article, and only one source is cited by it at all (which happens to be a game review). Also, WP:NOTAFANWEBSITE fails this page too, as it is if no interest to anyone but devoted fans, and lacks any notability. I-82-I | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A game review would be a valid source, but there is no indication the linked review reviews this particular book and not the bigger system. It is also not linked. Unless better sources are found, well, it falls GNG. PS. I found the text of the review mentioned here: [1]. It is three paragraphs, but I am not seeing why that source would be reliable. Was it a fanzine? This doesn't answer it. Even if we accept this publication as reliable, GNG requires multiple sources, so one more review is necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am still in shock that we have never introduced rules making all new articles go through the Articles for Creation process. Not every published work deserves its own article. That is the only standard that would justify keeping this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks - The single review covering it is not sufficient per WP:NBOOK to sustain an independent article. However, there is really no reason for it not to at least Redirect to the main article. The single source being used should probably be moved over there as well. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per Rorshacma. There's a source, and while I'm not familiar with it, it doesn't look like total trash. Worth a sentence or two at the target, and the source can be moved over for verification. Looks like a GNG fail, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As has been said, contrary to the nomination there is an independent source. Arcane is a rpg-specific magazine, and the cited article is, well, a review - what you would expect for the reception section of a book. I would be fine with simply keeping the article, but as so far only one source has been presented, merge seems reasonable. No benefit in deleting perfectly good, valid, and independent information. Daranios (talk) 20:17, 28 August 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.