Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Sword and Thunder

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. A discussion to redirect can happen outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Sword and Thunder

[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 game seems to have generated very little attention in its day (apart from the lengthy review given in the article already), and to have been totally forgotten since. Nothing useful stood out in the Google hits, the one source that looked promising (Fantasy Gamer #1) turns out to be an advert text only. There may be more in some old print magazines of course, but it will remain rather obscure in any case. No obvious redirect target as the company doesn't have an article either. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of play-by-mail games. It was covered in depth by at least one reliable source, so this preserves the edit history and allows the existing text to be restored in the future if more sources are uncovered (for a subject this niche and specialized, Google won't necessarily be representative of all extant RSes). A redirect won't cause undue confusion among readers as the relationship between the articles is clear. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a review from Dragon, and sourced another review, still looking for a copy of the latter.Guinness323 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That Dragon review is a very short one though, in a long list of games (14 or so of these very short reviews, and then 4 others which get an actual in-depth review). Fram (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Very promising. Leaning closer to keep given these new discoveries, but will hold off on officially changing my choice for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Failing that, a merge to list of play-by-mail games as suggested by JimmyBlackwing would be preferable to deletion since there are at least two reviews. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep sourcing probably barely gets over the bar. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & merge / weak delete. We have one review and one mention in passing, and GNG / NBOOK require multiple in depth sources. If one more source is found, this could survive, otherwise I don't see much option but merge this to the list that Jimmy linked above. PS. The game is so obscure we can't even find information on what year it was published in...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews are enough to put it over notability. There's no compelling reason to remove the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:01, 2 July 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.