Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

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 Keep. No reason for deletion is presented in the nomination or the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion, however I'm unclear as to whether it is notable enough to satisfy CSD A7. Taking here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or ~~MERGE~~: Contains new information not on the main Civilization IV page. I am actually fine with a merge, or we can keep it. The main Civ IV page says this was a user written program which is, to date, the only user mod of the game recognized as an expansion by the software producers of Civilization. There is also a sub-program called "stability" in the game which causes nations to collapse if their governments are opprressive. The Civ IV encyclopedia actually calls this a "crowning achievement". Not sure if we should merge it based on that - might be notable enough to keep it. -OberRanks (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so hot on merging right now after reading the homepage for the expansion (yes it has its own offcial website). Looks like it good some major press coverage when it came out. This has all been added to the article page which is significantly longer. -OberRanks (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Default to snow keep Though I'm not convinced this needs or warrants an article outside of the Beyond the Sword article, this certainly doesn't want deleting outright and the presence of sources like this and this means it's in no way a CSD A7 candidate. Someone another 01:39, 23 February 2010 (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.