Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Rogue

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 List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. Content can be merged from the history as an editorial action. Sandstein 07:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Rogue

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

Like many of the pages for the Fighting Fantasy titles, this is simply unnecessary. All it does is recap the general information found on the backcover and in any good review. With the exception of a few core titles - such as Warlock of Firetop Mountain (the very first title) and House of Hell (soon to be a film), the remainder fail the notability test. There simply isn't anything else that can be added. Some fans have made attempts by adding trivia and even a map solution, but this is all very in-universe and not encyclopedic. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into the parent article. There is no need for deletion here, per WP:PRESERVE as there is a clear merge target and thus no need for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disagree. These articles are little more than stubs and unnecessary. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect. "Unnecessary " is not a reason. Most of the articles in Wikipedia are, taken individually, not strictly necessary in the narrow sense that it is impossible to imagine an encyclopedia without it. A merge and redirect avoid the problem of notability --article content does not have to each section of it be notable , or we'd have it as a separate article. That the information can be found elsewhere is not a reason for not having it here--quite the contrary! DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you are saying, but thanks for the input. The articles in themselves are little more than trivia and POV. That's a fact. That said, I can glean what few gems are truly useful for another page and redirect rather than delete. Thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (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.