Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome: Total Realism


 * 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. and merge Rome: Total Realism VII into it. causa sui (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rome: Total Realism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating Rome: Total Realism and Rome: Total Realism VII. 90 per cent plus of the articles' content is not referenced: at time of writing, Rome: Total Realism contains two references in the whole article, one of which does not work; Rome: Total Realism VII just contains two references to internet forums. The articles also read like game guides, rather than encyclopaedic entries. Rome: Total Realism was PRODded before, but this was contested. By way of precedent, see Articles for deletion/Rise of Persia (also, for admins, and ; I would argue that the nominated article is lengthier, but not much better referenced).  It Is Me Here  t /  c  14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is on a similar topic (spin-off of the mod) and is also unreferenced:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it as unnecessary WP:SPINOUT. News, Books and Scholar links at the top of this AfD easily show WP:GNG-satisfying coverage for base topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it as unnecessary WP:SPINOUT. News, Books and Scholar links at the top of this AfD easily show WP:GNG-satisfying coverage for base topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and merge as above, or strip and merge both to Rome: Total War. The About.com coverage is too light to support the article (UGO isn't loading for me), but the VG/RS search gives us a review at firingsquad.com. That's really all I can find though - I would not object to this being reduced to one paragraph (in accordance with WP:WAF) and merged to the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Merge both - The parent article (not subject to this AfD) is Rome: Total War.  That article is rather small.  It makes no sense to have two small, unreferenced spin-off articles (both subject to this AfD).   Best solution is to merge both into the parent article: Rome: Total War.    No material will be lost, and there will be some decent sourcing. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that material would inevitably be lost. Editors would insist that the amount of space devoted to a section of an article must be proportionate to its relative importance. --Kiz o r  20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge Wow, glad I saw this nom. The mod is generally well known, despite lacking some references. In fact, I have enjoyed this mod for 2 years after first reading it from wikipedia. Dengero (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, does "keep and merge" mean "keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it", or to merge both (presumably to Rome: Total War)? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it. Sorry for not clarifying. Dengero (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII into it. A quick search turned up some sources like  and  and there are probably more.  Indeed a google books search finds both a PC Gamer review and a discussion in a book on Antiquity in popular culture.   Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2011 (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.