This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: board, card, etc. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Games: board, card, etc. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Procedural nomination per
WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Notcoin, as the redirect target of
Telegram (software), or any other target, was not found suitable. The page had been moved to draftspace on the day of its creation, as not ready for mainspace, however the creator had rejected the draftification. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet
WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so
WP:BIO1E applies. -
UtherSRG(talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No sources found. Zero citations for 16 years. External link is a
YouTube video called "KHARPOLICE 2" purporting to show "Iranian men playing Kharpolis" at Cachuma Lake, California, in 2010. (And the only comment on the video is "CHINCHE AL AGUA" which I guess is supposed to verify that the Mexican game is the same as the Iranian game.) Either this is
WP:OR or possibly even
WP:HOAX.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Previous AfD in 2008 addressed only
WP:NOTGUIDE accusations and did not address the lack of sourcing. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, the only edits by the creator were to create and crosslink this article at 17:25, 29 September 2008. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The game has only recently launched a Kickstarter and while there seems to be a bunch of positive press about the potential of this eventual game, that does not mean that it will actually happen (a bit of
WP:CRYSTAL combined with the unsure nature of Kickstarter campaigns). I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but I also do not think this should have been accepted from the Draft space (new reviewer etc etc) and should be returned there until it's actually released.
Primefac (
talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Per
WP:NEXIST. There are a lot more PCGamesN articles,
GamesRadar+ and
GameStar, just to name a few. It's true that the article is poorly sourced, and I agree that it should not have been accepted, but now that it's in article space, these problems are surmountable by the proper cleanup and editing. Simply being a bad article accept should not be cause for deletion, that should be on the reviewer to own up to their mistake.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking through the current sources I'm mostly seeing blogs and social media. There's a bit of student news, local news, and a nomination for an award, but not much else. The best source by far is
this source in THR. I did a
WP:BEFORE with "a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search" as well as a Google Scholar search. I was unable to find anything else.
TipsyElephant (
talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Other than the first source (the Hollywood Reporter), the rest used in the article are non-RS. I've found
[1] and
[2], should be just enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Agreed that those three sources alone qualify this article for notability (and thanks for finding, Oaktree!). Per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability: "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include [...] local television and radio stations [...] They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject," which the cited articles do.
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet
WP:NBIO. -
UtherSRG(talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up.
PsychoticIncall (
talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand
WP:SIRS and then list
WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS.
WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). -
UtherSRG(talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports).
PsychoticIncall (
talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet
WP:NBIO. -
UtherSRG(talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion.
PsychoticIncall (
talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide
WP:THREE for evaluation. -
UtherSRG(talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6).
PsychoticIncall (
talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic.
Hobit (
talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise.
✶Quxyz✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N.
Hobit (
talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough.
✶Quxyz✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply