Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalon no Kagi

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon no Kagi

[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)

Looks like (partly) copyvio from here. Also a concern about fancruft, seeing the histoty here.The Banner talk 20:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) The Banner talk 21:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC) (addition to rationale)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although I did flag this on the article that there is close paraphrasing, I don't think it was sufficient enough to write-off the article on that alone. I am also unsure if it's an appropriate AfD rationale, especially as it could be paraphrased differently and doesn't necessarily impact the majority of the current prose. I don't really have a view if the article stays or goes. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I have also a concern about it being fancruft, written by a player. The Banner talk 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's worth elaborating the rationale then so that it conveys a valid, or at least stronger reason for deletion? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Banner: Hi, so this is no fancruft, as I have never played this game, and I'll re-write the gameplay portion as soon as possible --Dop55 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 5 September 2022 (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.