Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventuring Companies (Mage Knight)


 * 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 delete all.  Sango 123  03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mage Knight stuff
Articles that are a part of this nom: Several articles detailing what I assume are game mechanics for an apparently unpopular collectable minitures game. They lack sufficent context to merge them into one article, and per WP:NOT this game guide material is pretty unencyclopedic anyway. Delete--Peta 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Domains (Mage Knight)
 * Draconum
 * Heroic Quests (Mage Knight)
 * Spells (Mage Knight)
 * Spellbooks (Mage Knight)
 * Items (Mage Knight)
 * Adventuring Companies (Mage Knight)
 * Delete —  per nom Chris Griswold 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't realize Mage Knight was that minor a game. JoshuaZ 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as WP is not a game guide. I will note parenthetically that unpopularity, or popularity, is not part of WP:NOT policy considerations.  Notability of the game, on the other hand, may be a consideration since a Google for "magic knight" game -rayearth -chess gets only 585 distinct Ghits.  I'm also not seeing any multiple non-trivial reviews or articles by third parties about the game.  Tychocat 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all of these as game guide, but Mage Knight (not "Magic Knight") is NOT a minor game, just a now-defunct game. It was the best-selling minatures game in North America for years, won numerous awards, was developed by a noteworthy game designer, and for years was the main product of a noteworthy game company. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all —  per above SynergeticMaggot 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the heroic quests one is mostly a copyvio anyway. I tagged and blanked the copyrighted content so it should get deleted anyway! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.