Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chill Master's Screen

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 Chill (role-playing game). The arguments to keep are generally weaker - when a merger has been proposed, keeping outright requires demonstration of not just notability but of the need for a standalone page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Master's Screen

[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)

Non-notable RPG supplement. This article does list a few references, with a review from a sci-fi magazine, but do not see lasting notability.

The overall topic of gamemaster's screen seems to be notable, but no indication that this specific one is. Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chill (role-playing game). 1 capsule review is not enough for notability. I assume the 2nd ref is a basic description of the product based on the info that it's citing (archive.org has the book but borrowing is unavailable: [1], thanks to Hachette). --Mika1h (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the added sources, I still think it should be merged, the one review is the only source that could be considered significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I have added several sources including that a copy of this product is held in the Strong Museum of Play, confirming this product's notability. I would also add, for the OP who posted "do not see lasting notability", that as per WP:NTEMP, notability does not fade with time. If it was notable in 1984, it is notable (in terms of an encyclopedia) today. Guinness323 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mika1h's latest objection following the article expansion has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The best source is a capsule review in a long list of reviews of Chill-related products. The recently added sources are a directory entry with borderline SIGCOV (leaning against this being SIGCOV) in a source with unclear reliability and another entry which doesn't contain SIGCOV of the equipment. I confirmed that the pre-existing sources don't have SIGCOV either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only genuine coverage here is a short capsule review in Space Gamer #71, while the other references (Heroic Worlds directory note, Le Grog database entry, museum catalogue listing) are routine listings that do not constitute significant independent coverage. Lacking the depth required by WP:GNG and WP:NGAME, this supplement is not notable enough for its own article. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chill (role-playing game), not seeing the standalone notability here due to a general lack of reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chill (role-playing game). Seems about right. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2025 (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.