Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AEGIS (Ragnarok Online) (2nd nomination)

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. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AEGIS (Ragnarok Online)

[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)

Not notable and was somehow kept twelve years ago despite an almost unanimous merge consensus. There's not much to merge into Ragnarok Online, and I'd be content with deletion, merging some info, or a straight redirect. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no sourced information to be merged. Straight delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources that show up in the WP:VGSE [1] and [2]. Please take a look to see if there are others. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Faulire of WP:GNG. Pretty crazy it’s existed for so long. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did anyone even take a look at the first AfD?? It actually closed as Keep despite the fact there was no consensus for that at all? Since there is nothing to merge here as it is all unsourced, and it fails WP:GNG... And to Izno, the sources posted are not WP:SIGCOV but passing mentions of few lines which is not enough to establish notability. Still not enough for merging this WP:OR to the main article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - AFD was a very different place back in 2006, and the 2000s in general. The standards were far lower back then, and you were far more likely to come across terrible discussions like that, where there’s very few allusions to policies and guidelines. That’s just how it was back then. But as you’ll likely see here, that doesn’t mean they stand up to modern day re-evaluations either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

More admins then, and even some admins now, saw AFD as binary "keep" or "delete". It can be annoying now, but it was commonplace then. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came back to take a second look as I was on mobile earlier. I've added the two sources to the article though. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2019 (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.