Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Magic

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Magic

[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)

A single review of a book about Magic the Gathering, published in a magazine from the company producing Magic the Gathering, so not an independent source. I couldn't find any other source beyond commercial listings, fan fora, or passing mentions, in the 81 Google hits, so this seems to lack notability. I couldn't find any reference to this book outside books by the same author or publisher either. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reasonable sources that could justify this as an encyclopedia topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dragon magazine no. 227 was published by TSR, Inc. in 1996. At that time, TSR was not affiliated (yet) with Wizards of the Coast, the producer of Magic the Gathering. So the article in that magazine should count as an independent source. Daranios (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the fact that Dragon was not yet associated in any way with Magic: The Gathering, it is still just a single source. With virtually no other information from reliable, secondary sources, it is a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any coverage that would substantiate inclusion per GNG or NBOOK. PK650 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 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.