Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft Adventures

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 Alternity. After more input to the discussion, a clear merge consensus has emerged. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Adventures

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

Back in 2008, I made contributions to this page in order to save it from the chopping blocks. Unfortunately, after becoming more experienced with Wikipedia and its policies, I have to throw in the towel and nominate this page for deletion. There just aren't sources per WP:GNG to establish notability. As much as I'd love reliable and independent sources to exist to establish notability with this article, they're just not there. Hence, I am here to try and do the right thing for Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge per discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise a merge to Alternity seems reasonable. I don't know much about them, but RPGGeek and RPGnet do mention that there have been reviews in magazines. BOZ (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alternity (or, alternatively, the StarCraft franchise page). No meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. No reliable, secondary coverage from my searches, but please ping me if there is an RPG custom search I should be using—not sure which RPG sites are reliable without digging individually. Please ping if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above RPGGeek source cites reviews of Tsunami Quarterly Review (p. 13) and Action Check (p. 4). The latter was a PDF mag published by the New Jersey RPG club and appears to have no reputation for accuracy. Similar for the former, but that review appears to be about the computer game and not the RPG. The RPGnet reviews could count, but that still puts us under the general notability guideline requirements. czar ♔ 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, no consensus to merge? czar ♔ 07:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Czar: Note that the nomination is also considered as an !vote. As such, a clear consensus for a merge is not present at this time, although the discussion is leaning toward one. Also, two potential merge targets have been presented. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but since they're not votes, we're not counting. We all agree that there isn't enough sourcing and there's been no objection to the redirect proposal as being a useful search term, so that would be the most frictionless close. @Oshwah, does a redirect sound good? czar ♔ 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Czar. That works for me! Thanks to everyone for the input on this discussion :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alternity per Czar's reasons presented on 16 November 2014. - tucoxn\^talk 05:54, 24 November 2014 (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.