Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (3rd nomination)

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

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

Article contains primary sources. There is potential for an article about Mods in the Civilization series in general, but as it stands, this particular mod doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. Coin945 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it was mentioned in reviews, the mentions don't appear to be significant. Not sure how this passed AfD before._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would it be possible to merge this article with Civilisation IV?Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a major expansion of the Civilization IV franchise, almost qualifying as an independent game unto itself. Recipient of numerous computer software awards and also inspired a sequel with the new Civilization VI. Also heavily referenced and a long standing article for several years. -O.R.^Comms 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Only to note, there's nothing I have seen that confirms Civ VI's "Rise and Fall" inspired by this. The name might seem familiar, but "rise and fall of civilizations" pre-dates "Rhys" easily. Let's not assume that's a reason to keep this. --Masem (t) 23:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't really see how an article can be listed twice, especially with one of them ending with WP:SNOW, and simply be listed again, without anything changing. It's clearly been at least mentioned in a lot of publications, and a few are paper, which we have to take as read, as good faith. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It meets all the criteria for inclusion. Nomination is bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -O.R.^Comms 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, and the nominator doesn't introduce any new arguments. It received non-trivial coverage in a large number of reviews of the base game, as well as a few dedicated reviews of the mod, see this page. – Joe (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per before; however there is a decent argument to merge to a wider page on Civ4 mods. There's clearly link-rot on reviews, but I'm convinced some do exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]