![]() | 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.

watch |
See also Sports-related deletions and Video games-related deletions.
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I am neither for nor against deletion because I know nothing about this subject, but I would not suggest a redirect to Fighting Fantasy because this subject is not mentioned in that article at all. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it should be. So add mention and then redirect. Very odd there is not a list of the books in that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can actually do that yourself. If that was your only issue, there was no need to bring the article to AfD. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Whether the link is in that article or not, there is still obviously a need to bring it to AfD because the book is not notable.
- I'll do it sometime later if someone doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the books are on the list article, List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which is stuck in the see also for some reason. So redirect there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can actually do that yourself. If that was your only issue, there was no need to bring the article to AfD. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it should be. So add mention and then redirect. Very odd there is not a list of the books in that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Canada, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete: For reasons I explained at WP:COIN. Not going to pour any more gasoline on the fire here. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: No indication of notability. JohnMizuki (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – Article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCHESS. — Chessy12 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.
Keepand tag for cleanup. Chessy12 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)— Chessy12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.— Duplicate !vote: Chessy12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Who are "The Companions" who published this? Is this part of a series? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- They seem to have been a small, short-lived company that published a few TTRPG books and accessories in the early-to-mid eighties. But like I said, I had trouble finding any significant coverage on the company in reliable sources - this is just from their listing on RPGgeek. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Is this a joke? I feel like anyone who thinks this article is worthy of an encyclopedia is actually pranking us. One source. Wow. - Poof positive (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Userfy or redirect somewhere. User:BOZ created many similar articles, many are borderline or better notable, but this one has just a single source. That's sadly not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure where this would be discussed in a publisher, author, or list article either. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Userfy, when possible a userfy/draftify option is a good option as an ATD. There are scant sources from what I see here, but then the subject matter is not a contentious BLP or I am not sure precisely which N guideline would apply. In such a case, a draftify/userfy option is wise. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Snow keep. Interview sources are more than fine. There are plenty of them: e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Please make your rationale P&G based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- You're WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Back off a little. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe. WP:IKNOWIT arguments don’t really help much either I guess. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- You're WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Back off a little. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please make your rationale P&G based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep
Merge to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs. The author of About.com review counts as subject matter expert (cited by New York Times, Tuscaloosa News, NPR). There's also a review by spieletest.at: [9]. Author is Arno Steinwender, who seems to be a notable board game designer, could also be counted as a subject matter expert. About.com review is too short to count as WP:SIGCOV and so there's not enough sources for a keep but I think merge is appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)- Thanks for looking into that. There were some additional sources mentioned at Talk:Don't Go to Jail#Sources which should also be considered if content is to be moved there. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to check the talk page. So the game was reviewed by Reich der Spiele: [10]. The site seems fairly reliable, its editorial policies appear to be very good: [11], [12], and it is cited by other sources: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Plus there's a print magazine review by de:Spielbox that briefly mentions the game: [19]. 2 standard reviews, 1 short one, and 1 brief mention. Enough for a keep I think. --Mika1h (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into that. There were some additional sources mentioned at Talk:Don't Go to Jail#Sources which should also be considered if content is to be moved there. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect: There is a possibility that there might be some coverage in (board) gaming magazines from the 1980s when the game first came out but I don't know what they would be or where to find them. Here is a review from a gaming blog, I'm not sure if this counts for notability. There is already a mention of it at Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs so redirect there is appropriate. Moritoriko (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Move, redirect, & disambiguate. Free parking currently redirects to Parking#Economics with a hatnote mentioning Free Parking. This is good; "parking that is free" is clearly the PTOPIC since the game is not notable. This page should do something similar, with care to preserve page history and existing links/redirects. My preference would be:
- Move Free Parking to Free Parking (game).
- Redirect Free Parking (game) to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs per Moritoriko.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Not to mention that the section the subsection is in (Monopoly (game)#Related games) currently has this tag: This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
- 1isall (talk/contribs) 12:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the section the subsection is in (Monopoly (game)#Related games) currently has this tag:
- 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:
- The false positives from the name definitely made it a challenge, so there is probably more out there. Adding the name of the designer Charles Phillips or the slogan "Feed the Meter" helped weed out the false positives a little bit. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Those sources are substantially all the same thing. They are the first edition, the second edition, and a French translation of the same book: Philip Orbanes' The Monopoly Companion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ping me if this is improved, but for now the article is poor (unreferenced OR), and sources discussed here are weak. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: I have rewritten the article and added two sources, both websites that explain and review board games. Both seem to be editorially independent and are not a shill to sell the games they review. For that reason, I would suggest that the game seems to be notable. Guinness323 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- The sources that you added are Geeky Hobbies and Fun Board Games. The reliability of both of them is unclear, so I will go over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask about them there. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Guinness323, also with my sources found above in case they are useful somehow. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- weak keep Sources seem reliable in context (are we really thinking they aren't reliable in their coverage of games?) but aren't great as noted. GNG is met. Editorially I think this might be better as a merge, but AfD is generally for notability arguments and this seems over the bar--take it to the talk page if you want a merge or redirect here. Hobit (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)- I didn't know AFD's could get relisted, too. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)