Deletion of Faiths and Pantheons (2nd nomination)

Comment: I don't see how any of the points of  applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? There are two secondary sources, that's the minimum requirement to fulfill , right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Contemporary sources reviewed the book & the article does not go into heavy game mechanic details (so it's not a  situation). I want to second Dream Focus's comment above that you used the same copy-paste rationale on dozens of PROD nominations before using it in AfD nominations. In the future, please take the time to review an article's sources & then (if you think it has failed notability, etc) customize your PROD/AfD nomination for the article at hand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: I am skeptical that Fictional Reality is a reliable source. Sources do not have to be online, but they still have to be , and this one has apparently been offline for at least a decade, meaning it was offline when it was added as a reference. The WotC source is not independent. That leaves a single source, which isn't enough to meet notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: This article was kept in an AFD less than a year ago, and the nomination has zero rationale or policy based argument as to why that result should be overturned or re-examined. The citing of  makes no sense in this case, as the article is on a real-world product, not on how to play the game itself. Claiming the article has "no meaning" is rather nonsensical
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: per below comments, or failing that '''merge''' to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks since there are  to retain, per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD)