Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition


 * 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 redirect to Forgotten Realms.  Sandstein  15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition

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

Doesn't pass notability per WP:PRODUCT. Mika1h (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games per WP:ATD. However, doesn't appear standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems actually to be a list article of notable entries, which is fine per WP:CSC. I agree, as an article, there's simply not much there, but the article also doesn't even suggest there was new content. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games, where it is already listed. It is merely a compilation of previously released games, with no actual sources or indication that it is, itself, a notable compilation. I'm also finding almost nothing on this collection on searches - the best I've found is a few "for sale" sites and a few entries in databases. I'm finding no actual coverage of the compilation itself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games per previous votes. This article fails WP:GNG. I'm confused on WP:CSC, since it doesn't seem to meet the selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per the CSC page, so WP:LISTN is failed. No any other notability criteria, such as WP:PRODUCT, are met at all, with currently no refs (nor other any ones I can find on Google, Books, Scholar, News); though, WP:ATD is sensible IMO, but there's nothing much to preserve here. VickKiang (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What part is ambiguous, subjective, or not supported by reliable sources? The bundle includes other published products, and its documentation is sufficiently reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. In the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am curious, but how do you think this is met by WP:GNG? With no refs whatsoever, I don't understand why this article should be considered notable as it doesn't have any refs. You said that [in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it?, this may be true if it's in an article with some refs, but with no refs at all, IMHO I strongly disagree with your keep vote. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's probably very mundane, but if so, why should an article be needed, per [in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it? Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Forgotten Realms, this section contains no less information about the games inside this compilation than the current article. Do not redirect it to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games, because it provides no information about this compilation. -Vipz (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would be fine with using this as the Redirect target as well. Rorshacma (talk) 14:48, 4 August 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.