Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootleg role-playing games


 * 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 and redirect to Role-playing game. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Bootleg role-playing games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, which explains why the article has remained unsourced for more than a decade. Woodroar (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Woodroar (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It obviously must have happened, but I don't see any evidence that this is a notable part of RPG history.  I did several searches, most of which turned up results about bootleg video games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Question for nom. I had proposed a merge to Role-playing game. Why is this not an adequate solution here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because this material is entirely unsourced. If someone added it to role-playing game right now, for example, it would be reverted as WP:NOR. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, how about replacing the content with a WP:REDIRECT to Role-playing game? Or how about any of the other suggestions in WP:BEFORE. ~Kvng (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to a redirect, per WP:CHEAP. But at the same time, if someone searches for "bootleg role-playing games" and gets sent to role-playing game where there isn't actually any information about bootlegs, that strikes me as a poor user experience. I don't think this is a particularly good candidate for redirect, but I wouldn't oppose it if consensus leaned that way. And, for what it's worth, I try to keep WP:BEFORE in mind whenever I consider nominating an article for deletion. I spent quite a while looking for sources here, and the fact that neither I nor anyone else has managed to find reliable sources covering this subject for over ten years says a lot. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect as best since there's nothing to suggest a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 1 April 2016 (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.