Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Bellis Multitudinis

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, but a few sources wouldn't hurt. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Bellis Multitudinis

This is an unreferenced article advertising a product. The only source is the home page of the manufacturer of the product. It amounts to little more than grandiose spam. Mr Maxim 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, worldcat indicates that "De Bellis Multitudinis" is used by groups on both side of the Atlantic. Wargames Research Group (WRG) appears to be quite notable, having produced a lot of books on this topic, with a number of them being cited in google scholar results. If it is found that "De Bellis Multitudinis" is a brand of product produced by WRG, I think it would be appropriate to merge this article into the WRG article. John Vandenberg 14:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not into the miniatures side of wargaming, but from my understanding it is currently a popular miniatures ruleset, as the article asserts. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is popular. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wargaming. Plus, the article desperately needs internal links - to a non-geek like myself (and most people I presume), it's abstruse, to put it mildly. --Targeman 01:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would totally unbalance an overview-level article like wargaming to import any level of detail about a single ruleset into that article. There are hundreds of miniatures rulesets and boardgames out there. The company would be a better merge target, if it comes to that. And don't feel bad, wargaming terminology is incomprehensible to most outsiders, even moreso for those who aren't into military history. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am surprised this is even questioned. DBM is an extremely popular ruleset for historical wargaming, and a quick google search can surely attest to the popularity it enjoys across the globe. --Agamemnon2 22:48, 17 July 2007 (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.