Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape: Betrayal at Falador

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 RuneScape. did the redirect, merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape: Betrayal at Falador

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

An article with a single source. It also fails to meet notability guideline for books. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I've done some searches on Google for this book, but I can't find any reviews from reliable sources. Actually, I'm having trouble finding any reviews period. I don't think it's notable enough for an article.
- Note - I'm for merging it to Runescape too. >_>; -- Raziel teatime 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Taelus (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RuneScape. Seems an obvious choice. Powers ^T 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of merging. It says in the lead, "The book was overlooked by critics", and that probably kills the article's chances. With regards to merging, it was mentioned in RuneScape, but was removed to avoid a stub section. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an odd reason to remove information. It doesn't even have to be its own section. Powers ^T 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's possible some of the information can be made into a sub-section, using that one secondary source. It would certainly be enough to support a section. Hmmm...I'll bring this up there and see what happens - it's been very quiet lately. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Runescape. Why delete to avoid having a stub section? Wikipedia is a work in progress, stubs are not bad. As previously said, it does not even need to have its own section. --Taelus (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not exactly the most notable of books... I have no opinion on a merge.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - After a very short search I couldn't find any reliable reviews. But I think that it would be important to mention the book in the RuneScape article, doesn't have to get its own section though.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Runescape per above. --Teancum (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2009 (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.