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The result was speedy keep withdrawn by nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Fury (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)

Nothing about this game appears to meet WP:GNG. No sources outside of some random blog posts exist. WP:NGAME is about video games, not "miniatures wargames", but this doesn't meet the spirit of it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak Keep. A reasonable WP:BEFORE might be performed before submitting for AfD. On the first page of the gsearch I see this from miniatures.de, a German website. Wargamer.com has this. Neither of these are blogs and both directly detail. Originally these rules were released pre-internet, so most product reviews will be offline. Put this together with the Lowder book and we meet GNG from diverse professional sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did WP:BEFORE. I wasn't impressed. I didn't think these links counted for much in terms of WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are certainly specialized sources, but not indiscriminate. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is fair, and you do know more about the field than I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not a Video Game - This is a BoardGame in comparrison to something like War Hammer, so I have removed the Video Games tag. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BusterD, and move to ←Fire and Fury (board game) to make room for the new book or a disambiguation page. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject is a miniatures rules system, like AD&D's Battlesystem or the very popular (and laborious) Johnny Reb (game). So I'd not use "board game" as a disambiguator. I'd prefer "miniatures rules" but think Fire and Fury (game) meets the naming standard best. But It's clear with the new book out we'll need a disambiguation page. I can see why the nominator put this up, though. No hard feelings, Muboshgu, and congratulations on your shiny new mop. Truly. The book will certainly one day be a primary topic and this is such a fringe subject that only game nerds like BOZ and I are familiar. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough! :) I agree that is a fine disambiguator. BOZ (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BusterD, but move it to Fire and Fury (game). The upcoming book Fire and Fury will likely be the primary topic. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my conversation with BusterD at User_talk:Muboshgu#Fire_and_Fury, I'm okay with withdrawing this nom and moving the page to accommodating the new primary topic. (As an aside, while discussing "primary topic", notice that the page views of this article are fairly low, with a serious bump on August 9, 2017. Why might that be? That's because the day before, Trump promised "fire and fury" for North Korea.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 4 January 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.