Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadwallon (role-playing 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 redirect‎ to Confrontation (Rackham)#Cadwallon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwallon (role-playing game)

[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)

GNG failing game from a defunct corporation. No significant coverage from searching, and has had a "no sources" tag on for 15+ years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Redirect to Confrontation (Rackham)#Cadwallon as an alternative to deletion. The reviews at RPGnet and fr:Guide du rôliste galactique seem like user reviews. --Mika1h (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Confrontation (Rackham)#Cadwallon - Agree that the reviews, being user reviews, do not meet GNG. Happy with the target as a suitable WP:ATD, but I don't see what there is on this page that would be suitable for merge on the target page, nor would it be due considering the lack of suitable sources. The redirect will still preserve page history should anyone disagree and wish to attempt to merge something. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2024 (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.