Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Decor

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 18:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Decor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

One review (well, one part of a review of "playing aids", not a full review of this product alone), and a mere mention in one sentence (as one of four similar things), is not enough to meet WP:N (unless you desperately want to include a 2-line review in the "Mixumaxu Gazette" fanzine as well). Nothing further could be found in the 29 Google hits, apparently even in the RPG world this is very obscure). No obvious redirect target, company has no article either. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This does not appear to be a notable product at all. As stated in the nom, the actual coverage in the sources cited are less than trivial. The book listed, for example, has no coverage of this actual product at all, it just mentions its name alongside a number of other similar products. The fact that the publisher is also non-notable means that there is no target for a Redirect or Merge. Not that there would actually be much in the way of actual sourced content to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. there is significance to this general topical area in knowing that this type of product even did exist. the sources are valid enough to be genuinely credible. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rorshacma's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 01:13, 16 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.