Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

See also Sports-related deletions and Video games-related deletions.


[edit]
Armies of Death (edit | 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)

Could not find any sigcov. Redirect to Fighting Fantasy (the series it is in)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Graif (edit | 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)

This came up at WP:COIN, where there has been argument also over whether the subject is notable or not. Bringing here to get a clear consensus. I am personally a weak delete: the source I see are all either glancing mentions or human interest reporting of the sort that I do not think adds much to notability. I am influenced by WP:TNT: this overweight article has little to do with what an eventual article on the subject would look like. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article appears to be well referenced on its surface, but upon further investigation they are very much lacking. The sources marked US Chess are actually from the US Chess Federation, whereas reading US Chess initially implied to me it was some sort of news publication - the rest appear to be largely passing mentions, or routine coverage and scoreboards. I also concur with the nominator that TNT bears some weight here. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a chess editor but from my point of view there's not much to build an article on. MediaKyle (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can confirm the assessment of MediaKyle that the cited sources are largely passing mentions, coverage by local news outlets of "local boy does good", and crosstables. The edit history shows that the whole article was written by Chessy12, whose user page declares a conflict of interest over the article. In other words, the article is an WP:Autobiography. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep William Graif has focused on a niche aspect in chess called gambits. he has dedicated countless hours researching, publishing see on linktree unfortunately Wikipedia won't let me link to it linktr.ee/wgraif. and even developing his own gambits he leads a small but growing community of gambit aficionados on several platforms including discord https://discord.com/channels/1032151596190158949/1032151597951750147 he has a very active YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@GambitMan where he features his own games and also the games of his subscribers. All the info in the article as far as i can tell is factual and I see No reason to delete.
Jarcher12 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Jarcher12 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The draft meets WP:GNG and the sport-specific WP:NCHESS tests. Multiple independent, reliable outlets have provided significant, in-depth coverage of William Graif for decades.
Significant coverage (chronological):
- Scarsdale Inquirer "Whiz Kid!" front-page feature on young chess prodigy and early life (Aug 29, 2008)
(this publication also featured Graif+Edgemont in 2018, and his individual Canadian Junior Championship in 2019)
- MLB.com national human-interest story on friendship with pitcher, discussing National Master titled attained at age 14 (Oct 18, 2015)
- Daily News discussing back-to-back NY State High School Championships, concluding "Edgemont owes much of its success to player/coach William Graif", article also quotes Graif extensively (Mar 22, 2018)
- The Chicago Maroon three long-form sports pieces (May 2021, Nov 2021, Mar 2022) discussing on-campus impact, FM title, European tour, and team victories
- Bloomberg News business feature on 2024 World Corporate Chess Championships, quoting Graif and his board-one role (Jun 18, 2024)
- Empire Chess Magazine Autumn-2024 cover story with interview and annotated games after NY State title (Oct 7, 2024)
- Uptown Radio 7.5-minute audio on Chessboxing -- covering Graif's victory and his preparation for 2025 World Championships -- as well as cultural impact (May 16, 2025)
These sources alone provide sustained, non-trivial coverage (whole articles, audio segments, magazine coverage) across at least ten years (2015-2025) in mainstream, regional, and specialist outlets -- far beyond "passing mentions" and easily clearing the "significant coverage" bar.
Comparable or lower-titled players with kept pages (demonstrates consistent application of the same policies, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS):
- FM James H. Canty III -- streamer (Graif also streamer+YouTuber with 10k subscribers
- FM Tanitoluwa Emmanuel "Tani" Adewumi -- prodigy coverage
- FM Joshua Colas -- mainly scholastic titles, also is IM-elect
- WFM Alexandra Valeria Botez -- lower title, but extensive media presence
Each kept due to sustained RS coverage, illustrating consistent application of GNG for FIDE Masters. Notability turns on the depth of independent reliable coverage, and rating alone is irrelevant per WP:NCHESS, which clearly states that GNG is paramount. As for other concerns, COI or overweight prose is addressed by normal editing, not deletion (see WP:TNT §KEEP). Expanded below.
(WP:NCHESS #3 mentions "has won a national or continental championship or women's championship", of which Graif has four age-based)
Common SPORTSBIO triggers:
- "Significant national titles": 146th New York State Champion (2024), Canadian Junior U20 Champion (2019), US 6th Grade National Champion (2011), US 3rd Grade National Champion (2008), Canadian Youth U10 National Champion (2008) [source: tournament cross-tables linked in article, plus media coverage]
- "International representation": officially selected for Team USA at the 2025 World Chessboxing Championships [source: Uptown Radio]
COI / weight: I understand and appreciate the concerns about the language used in the article, but per WP:TNT section KEEP, the fix for an over-long COI draft about a notable subject is trimming, not deletion, and am happy to help, for instance:
– prune puffery
– condense routine scholastic crosstables
– add page/episode numbers to the RS above
Conclusion: With multiple, independent RS giving in-depth coverage and national titles plus international selection, Graif is clearly a very notable figure stemming from the chess community. We are talking about the current New York State Chess Champion (noting that this is an extremely prestigious title: the longest-running annual chess tournament in the world according to NYSCA, since the 1870s, Graif is the 146th Champion, a list which includes some of the greatest chess players of all time).
Result: William Graif plainly clears GNG and NCHESS. Keep and tag for cleanup. Chessy12 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Chessy12 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Duplicate !vote: Chessy12 (talkcontribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing (edit | 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)

A TTRPG product that does not appear to be notable. There is a single short "capsule review" of the product included in the article, but that is not enough to pass the WP:GNG on its own, and searches are not bringing up any kind of significant coverage (or any kind of coverage at all) in reliable sources on either the product or the company that produced it. As the company that made it is also non-notable and has no article, I cannot find any valid WP:ATD for this non-notable product. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unless someone offers to work on this, I'm reluctant to userfy or draftify. Can a suitable redirect target be found?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 07:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sagar Shah (edit | 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)

Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complete nonsense. Media-wise, the Indian version of ChessBase is way more important than the German version. How do you not know that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Perlen vom Bodensee is not just a blog, [8], it is a very reliable source, also trusted by de-wp, for what it's worth. - Squasher (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No snow in the forecast here. Any further input on the sourcing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChessBase India is not an WP:SPS. He is not the one writing the articles that are about him. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that ChessBase India is probably the most reliable WP:RS among chess publications. If you don't want to count it for the subject of this article because he's the one who created it, there's some lacking WP:COMMONSENSE going on here. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, the nominator does not understand what ChessBase or ChessBase India are. These sites exist to sell chess products (e.g. software, under the name ChessBase), hence why they have similar names. They also both have a media/journalism component, but the two media/journalism components are completely separate from each other. ChessBase's media/journalism component is not considered particularly important or successful, while ChessBase India's media/journalism component has been so successful that a lot of people believe the media/journalism component has overtaken the chess products component in terms of the company's image. I can provide sources to back this up, but this is just common knowledge if you are familiar with chess. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Although you are correct that Chessbase India is not a WP:SPS, as he is its founder, I don't see how it can be considered independent of the subject. Also the interview with him is primary - see WP:IV. Interviews are not fine - they are primary sources. But despite that, the Perlom vom Bodensee article looks good - SIGCOV in an independent reliable and secondary source. We need multiple, of course. There are mentions in a few other places, but I haven't yet found more. All the same, I think based on coverage that does not rise to significance or where independence is questionable, I still think we could support a presumption that more exists. That being said, there is a caution: the text of the Perlom vom Bodensee article has Werbung (advertising) just before the body text. If the whole article is paid advertising, then it is not independent. In that case I would say this is a clear case for deletion. Only if we can verify the independence of that article would I say it's enough to support a weak keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IV says some kinds of interviews are fine. I agree with you that the video interviews are primary, but the written interviews vary. This one and this one are both definitely acceptable in that regard. For Perlom vom Bodensee, it's not a paid article, if that's what you mean. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If ChessBase India's media/journalism work is successful, then it deserves its own standalone article. By WP:SPS, what I was trying to point out is that he owns the Indian site, so anything it publishes about him can effectively be considered as self-published, even if it carries an author byline. I realize now that I phrased that poorly before but my main point is that these sources are not independent.
    Likewise, the Chess.com Creator of the Month feature would be considered routine coverage if it were about any other YouTuber/streamer. From what I understand of the standards here, the bar for notability among YouTubers and content creators is quite high and a single interview or profile like this wouldn’t be enough to establish it.
    Perlom vom Bodensee cannot be verified to have any kind of editorial oversight, as it is the founder publishing the majority of the articles and this is once again an interview. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For most of the Creator of the Month articles, the issue would be it's not independent, as almost all of the featured creators are affiliated with Chess.com. But that's not the case with the subject of this article. He is one of the only creators featured who isn't affiliated with them. So it's not WP:ROUTINE. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, it's ridiculous to frame the subject as just a content creator when he is primarily known for creating an entire media platform. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep - Haven't investigated in depth but I've certainly heard the name before, he's a strong player (just below GM level) and I'm familiar with his writing on chessbase. The combination of strong player and established chess journalist should be enough to get him over the line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make your rationale P&G based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Back off a little. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. WP:IKNOWIT arguments don’t really help much either I guess. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 07:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Go to Jail (edit | 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)

I originally proposed the deletion of this article with the concern, "This article only cites a primary source, while the rest of it is unsourced. I tried searching for secondary sources (including books and scholars) but found none. Therefore, this topic most likely fails the general notability guideline." User:BOZ then removed the PROD and suggested that the article be merged to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs, which I thought would be inappropriate because all of its text is pretty much unsalvageable, not to mention that the one primary source used to cite one sentence is now a permanent dead link. There was also the suggestion of redirecting to said page, which I was a bit skeptical about because the only mention of it there cites About.com (known today as Dotdash Meredith), which is a situational source according to the perennial sources list. (For the reliability of the source in the context of board games, I'll leave that up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games.) Basically, I'm still favoring this article's deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Free Parking (edit | 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)

With a due diligence search, I have found no reliable sources showing significant coverage of this topic. Also, if this topic were a person, an animal, an organization, web content, or an event, (which it's not any of those), it would've met speedy deletion criterion A7. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Move Free Parking to Free Parking (game).
  2. Redirect Free Parking (game) to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs per Moritoriko.
  3. Redirect Free Parking to Parking#Economics, with a hatnote pointing to Free Parking (game).
Messy process, but sensible result. Anerdw (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs. I looked at the issues of Games magazine from 1988 and 1989 on the Internet Archive, and it wasn't mentioned once as far as I could tell. No reviews, no listing among the year's best games, not even an advertisement. Maybe there are reliable sources out there, but they will have to be found before this article can be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to let you all know that the mention of Free Parking in Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs cites About.com (which we all know today as Dotdash Meredith). According to Wikipedia:RSPS, there is no consensus about Dotdash's reliability, so it should only be used situationally. I don't know about the reliability of the source in the context of Monopoly spin-off games. 1isall (talk/contribs) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the section the subsection is in (Monopoly (game)#Related games) currently has this tag:
1isall (talk/contribs) 12:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I checked the Internet Archive which was difficult due to many false positive regarding the name. I do not know if they would help with notability at all, but I found these:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know AFD's could get relisted, too. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion

[edit]