 | Points of interest related to
Games on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Assessment – To-do |
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.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- 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:| watch |
See also Sports-related deletions and Video games-related deletions.
What Happened in Skinner
- What Happened in Skinner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Games, and Oregon. TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
Daniel Sepiol
- Daniel Sepiol ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Jesse Sylvia
- Jesse Sylvia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 ( talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Ari Engel
- Ari Engel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Ari Engel)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Alan Engel)
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director ( talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director ( talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- "major impact historically on pop culture through the game" - surely someone has described that impact. Then, it's just a matter of writing down who that person was, and we have a source that contributes to notability. The thing we can't do, on the other hand, is that one of us, a Wikipedia user, is the one who discerns the cultural impact. It has to be verified by another party. Geschichte ( talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Engel definetly does not check the box of culturally impactful poker player lol. The only things that maybe make sense for the article being retained are his accomplishments which gulf many other players here who do not even come close to that pedigree. I do not care if this article stays or leaves personally. Existing articles make a case for keeping is all I am saying.
Red Director (
talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Existing articles make a case for keeping
is a WP:WHATABOUTISM. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)- I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus.
Red Director (
talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is still WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you know of other articles that don't measure up, then please nominate them for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus.
Red Director (
talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Well, I found this [3], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Red Director. The bracelets merits inclusion alone but then there's also the record holding of circuit rings (17). Atleast the main events at each circuit tour stop is pro-amateur. There's also a million plus score in a highly regarded event. PsychoticIncall ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Also, the two newspaper.com clippings are from the same article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Baba Ijebu
AfDs for this article:
- Baba Ijebu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable betting company; no reliable sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro ( talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep:
[9],
[10],
[11], and
[12] from the article is enough to establish notability. Per se, the article meets
WP:ORGCRIT and
WP:SIGCOV. Maybe clean up is the problem.
this and
this shows mentions in books and newspapers.
Safari Scribe
Edits!
Talk! 23:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment None of the references you've linked to provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, the topic of this article, none therefore meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Sources look fairly dubious.
1 is a how-to guide with pros/cons of playing,
2 is highly promotional ("popularity spreading like wildfire"),
3 is a hagiographic (see "Not only is Sir Kensington a successful business mogul, he also continues to contribute his quota to humanity") profile of the owner,
4 is a brief statement that the company has signed an athlete to an endorsement deal. Passing mentions found on Google above do not contribute to notability.
Heavy Grasshopper (
talk) 12:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sources are allowed to be as promotional (or anti-promotional) as they want per
WP:RSBIAS. What matters is whether there's information in those sources that we can use. What counts as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be
tone policing the sources. When you read through a "highly promotional" source, you just have to ignore the fluff and focus on the facts. For example, in the first couple of paragraphs, this one says that the subject is named after the founder, says where the founder is from, and says it is computer-based. Those are all encyclopedic facts.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful response. Though I have some awareness of RSBIAS, it was good to have the opportunity to read it again and ensure I consider that fully when opining at AFD. I could have phrased my initial comment more effectively. i did feel the sources may scrape past the GNG threshold, which is why I didn't vote delete. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sources are allowed to be as promotional (or anti-promotional) as they want per
WP:RSBIAS. What matters is whether there's information in those sources that we can use. What counts as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be
tone policing the sources. When you read through a "highly promotional" source, you just have to ignore the fluff and focus on the facts. For example, in the first couple of paragraphs, this one says that the subject is named after the founder, says where the founder is from, and says it is computer-based. Those are all encyclopedic facts.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Also, be aware there are differences between the types of sources that we require in order to establish notability of the topic company/organization versus the types of sources that may be used to support the content within the article. For the latter, just about any reliable source may be used, hence why RSBAIS is a thing. The sources you've linked to (legit.ng, allafrica.com, etc) may all be used to support facts and other content, but they all fail GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge portions to
Gambling in Nigeria and expand from there. I don't think a standalone article is tenable if it's based on sources containing passages like
It is true what they say: you can’t win without trying. Why not to try it out today? Now that you know all there is to know about betting, it should be easier for you to play and even win.
andDream numbers: have you heard some people say they've seen lotto numbers while sleeping? It happens after they play the numbers - they say they've seen it in a dream. Note: sometimes your dream can fail if you are not sure that your dreams work.
However, after trawling through hundreds of results on PQ, I believe there is enough basic info there that a merge would be feasible. I found some additional background content in this journal article on gambling in Nigeria (citation below), though of course only the secondary (non-research/results) material in the intro section should be incorporated anywhere. There's also this article in India's Premium Times regarding tax fraud allegations, and a lengthy profile on Adebutu in sometimes-reliable? newspaper Vanguard. Other mild coverage is here. I don't think any of this is enough for SIRS, though. Salaam, A. O. (2014/02//). Gambling for sustainability: “Area boys” and gambling behaviour in lagos, nigeria. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12(1), 80-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-013-9472-z EXCLUSIVE: EFCC goes after 'baba ijebu' over alleged multi-billion naira tax fraud. (2020/01/28/, 2020 Jan 28). Premium Times Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/exclusive-efcc-goes-after-baba-ijebu-over-alleged/docview/2346453561/se-2Low activities in lottery market. (2017/04/29/, 2017 Apr 29). This Day Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/low-activities-lottery-market/docview/1892944612/se-2 JoelleJay ( talk) 04:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)