Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Imperium


 * 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. No sources = no article.  Sandstein  17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Fantasy Imperium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has just passed the 13 year mark without a single source. A search on Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any RS. WP:FANCRUFT applies. Chetsford (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego". Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion.

Nom doesn't even understand the FANCRUFT essay. That's pretty clueless. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Newimpartial - the nom's argument may or may not be correct, but you clearly have an epic inability to understand and utilise WP:CIVIL.


 * In relation to the AfD, I actually find myself more struggling to understand your case (which I assume is a "Keep" !vote) - where does the nom mention anything along those lines at all. It seems a clear notability case being made, rather than a content dispute. In any case, I was unable to find any suitable coverage (generally non-reliable user RPG reviews) in my own WP:BEFORE sweep and thus it warrants deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I need to be more explicit, I will. The nominator has provided no valid grounds for deletion. FANCRUFT, even if the article were such (which it isn't), is not policy-based grounds for deletion whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Need being the operative word - if you jump in at rude you miss the opportunity to see whether a civil answer would work. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct. I was overcome by Chetsford's belligerently-repeated falsehoods, but I should know to act better. Sigh. (I meet all diagnostic criteria for being easily trolled, but the ADA doesn't recognize those as grounds for accommodation. :p) Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Query - I'd been considering a redirect, and the target noted by BOZ would be a good one (I don't think merge, since there isn't much space for additional content to go in). However that article specifically says it is for notable pages, and by dint of us redirecting OR merging, we'd render it unsuited for the list. However the further down the list you go, the less obedient to its own instructions the list gets. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a great question, Nosebagbear. I'm tentatively open to Redirect as well, however, had the same issue you identified. For now I've decided to stay with Delete on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFF; i.e. because there is policy non-compliant content in one area of WP that doesn't establish a precedent for continuing to introduce it. But I think you're right in that it could go either way. Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced, and when an AFD is launched failure to find even one source makes me thin there arnt any.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No third party reliable sources. Fails GNG. Publisher is red-linked so no viable redirect target. Jbh  Talk  17:01, 20 August 2018 (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.