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. Consensus is that this is not a notable game. The mentioned possible merge target explicitly is only for notable games. If someone needs the text for another article, I'd be happy to restore and userfy. SoWhy 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zen and the Art of Mayhem[edit]

Zen and the Art of Mayhem (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)

Article on a game is sourced entirely to an email posted to a Usenet group and a single review on "rpg.net." A search of JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Zen and the Art of Mayhem". Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. Just a few months shy of the anniversary of being named a "precious editor" by Gerda Arendt, I've now been downgraded to a "clueless editor". I guess I flew too close to the heavens. Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was also fond of User:Jack Merridew, for what it's worth. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters for this discussion but correcting: I didn't have the pleasure to meet him, joining in 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - though this probably fails GNG, I will note that RPG.net reviews are not necessarily not RS. While RPG.net does allow users to submit reviews, it also has staff reviewers, which could theoretically meet the intent of WP:RS. (I have not looked to see if this is the case here.)- Sangrolu (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft for now and eventually merge content and redirect to a new article on Anime RPGs, an undoubtedly notable topic that will allow relevant content to be brought together in one place. I think this works better than using the List of role-playing games for something other than its intended purpose. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to List of role-playing games by name.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent third party reliable sources. Fails GNG. Publisher is red-linked so is not a viable redirect. Game is not notable so it fails the suggested list's inclusion criteria so that is not an option either. Jbh ^Talk 17:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking any WP:RS. I would not be terribly opposed to moving this to draft space, but if nobody's come up with better sources during the AfD, I don't expect moving it to draft will actually be productive. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (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.