Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidequest

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Side-quest Sjakkalle 11:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sidequest

Pointless article, possible candidate for merging with Role-playing game and/or Computer_role-playing_game. Jamyskis 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bengt Olav Olsen 11:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redir to the latter (where it's most appropriate; pen-n-paper RPG is more freeform). R adiant _* 12:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Not Delete -- sort-of neologism for which searches might be made, esp by those whose 1st lang is not English, but are trying to read an Engrish game manual --Simon Cursitor 12:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Side-quest, which is a more common version of the same term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge (and probably redirect) to Side-quest. The term is used in both pen-and-paper and video RPGs. Not a neologism; commonly used in the 1970s, when video gamers could role-play nothing more complex than a tennis ball (PONG). Barno 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Side-quest. The term is still used in video RPG's, but it would be so nice if all of the matter in Side-quest were merged and redirected to Role-playing game. With redirects, people can still search, and we ought not be so very granular. Is there really something to say about genres, development, and history of the side-quest? Geogre 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Side-quest per Andrew Lenahan. — RJH 16:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect per Andrew Lenahan. I would oppose merging side-quest, though. Meelar (talk) 21:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to side-quest. -Sean Curtin 05:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Andrew. This is a big enough aspect of RPGs to warrant it's own article, but not big it's already got an ok page there.-LtNOWIS

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.