Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warlock (board game)


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Warlock (board game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article doesn't make a claim to notability, and the game seems to mostly be referenced on shopping and fandom sites. WP:GNG does not seem to be met. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Of the sources present, only the actual review from White Dwarf The Space Gamer could be considered a reliable secondary source. And, as the WP:GNG suggests that multiple reliable sources are generally needed, it doesn't meet the criteria.  If an additional review or something similar can be located in other reliable sources, though, I would reconsider my stance.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that we should use similar criteria as for video games, where a review or two in reliable source are sufficient. In this particular case, it hinges on the extent of the review in The Space Gamer. And - I don't see the White Dwarf review anywhere? Right now I am leaning towards a weak delete, as the term "Capsule Review" suggests a short note, and no other source is presented outside the obligatory BGG link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, sorry, I meant The Space Gamer. I had been looking at a different article that had used "White Dwarf" as a source, and had the wrong magazine on my mind when I typed that.  I've corrected it in my recommendation.  Rorshacma (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2019 (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.