Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizards and Lizards

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 lines of miniatures. Sandstein 11:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards and Lizards (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)

Non-notable miniatures. I'm not sure why the prod by another editor was removed when this has only one reference. I found no other significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Many of these non-notable articles exist from the same editor over the years. I'm tempted to at least prod them, but I figure that someone or other would say that I'm harassing the editor or disrupting Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the fact that the one ref provided is a review recommending purchase makes this stub look like it’s intended to promote sales in the fan market. Ideally I’d like to see this merged into a list article of some kind but without any knowledge of the topic I’ve no idea what that might be. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Anne drew 14:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Since there are a large number of these, create a List of lines of miniatures and merge them all there. bd2412 T 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: given the improvements to the article, I would be somewhat less inclined to oppose the article being kept. bd2412 T 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Credit where credit is due to User:Guinness323, who found more than I was expecting, especially with regards to the designer Ray Lamb (whose article was unsourced a week ago). BOZ (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect That single review being used as a source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage, preferably from multiple sources. If some sort of master "List of lines of miniatures" is ever created, as proposed, I would not be opposed to this being re-created as a redirect, but until that is done, the subject does not meet the criteria needed to maintain an article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rorshacma: - challenge accepted. List of lines of miniatures. bd2412 T 18:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be against a merge/redirect now that this exists. SL93 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, a redirect to this list is more than acceptable at this point. Nice work! Rorshacma (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added reviews from four issues of Dragon, the foremost FRP magazine of the time, to show that this line of miniatures and its sculptor, Ray Lamb, were very highly regarded in the FRP world. It may take some time, but I'll be looking for more reviews from other notable FRP magazines to further the point. Guinness323 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge RedirectThe LA Times reference is of the most incidental nature, while the Dragon reviews are WP:ROUTINE. A redirect per @Rorshacma: would be fine, I guess, as would a Merge. `Chetsford (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guinness323, otherwise merge to the new list page created by bd2412. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guinness323.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of lines of miniatures. During this conversation another user has helpfully created the appropriate place for this content. Szzuk (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2019 (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.