Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings War

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 merge to List of play-by-mail games. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kings War

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks all notability. The 14 Google hits[1] and seems to have not received any attention after the first review (or round of reviews, if any others existed). No obvious redirect target as the company has no article either. Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to - List of play-by-mail games Both the one source already included in the article, as well as the only relevant looking result in the search, are both from White Wolf, and both written by the same individual. This does not demonstrate that it was covered by multiple, reliable sources. Additionally, unless the content of the source currently in the article is actually expanded on, I'm not even sure that one could even count as a single reliable source - based on the title of the article being cited, it sounds more like a directory listing than an actual review. It looks like this game is already listed on the List of play-by-mail games, but seeing how incredibly non-notable it appears to be, I would actually recommend removing its entry from that list rather than Redirecting this article to there.

Update - Airborne84 adding the info on the actual review from White Wolf, I think, is enough that I would now be fine with it being included on the master Play By Mail list and Redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added a non-trivial review from White Wolf Magazine #13. Doesn't establish notability as per WP:GNG, but gets it closer. I only added a bit of info from the review to the article since it may end up on the chopping block. However, I also added the ref at the respective entry at List of play-by-mail games so if it's deleted but another substantial source turns up later perhaps they can be combined to establish notability. Airborne84 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I'm only commenting vs. recommending delete as web searches are not likely to generate results for games like these. Many of the magazines that would have carried articles on this topic such as Paper Mayhem, either of Gaming Universal's two print runs, The Nuts & Bolts of PBM, Flagship, and others are out of print and not digitized or incompletely digitized. So, WP:NEXIST can come into play in these cases. Of course, some of these games simply never were notable. I don't know which category this one falls into. Airborne84 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that the review from White Wolf has been added to the article, it would not be unreasonable to merge to the List of play-by-mail games if no additional sources are found. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.