Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of notability, a single review in a highly specialized magazine. Even the broader internet, which has plenty of sites for this kind of topic, has very little attention for this one, i.e. 22 Google hits. Nothing in Google Books. Fram (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Specialized" is not a pejorative when it comes to sources. However "one" is a problem.    if he's still around in the hopes that he or  can find some additional sources. But if that's all there is we need to either merge (but I don't know where to) or delete.  Hobit (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Nearly all magazines and journals are specialized. I will look into it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment found one source but that's it.Timur9008 (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2022 (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.