This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
As much as I love the NYT games, I don't see a reason for Letter Boxed to have its own article, as I struggle to believe it meets WP:General notability. All the sources here are either NYT primary sources or articles about the NYT games section as a whole (with the only exception being the one Polygon article). This article should probably be folded into The New York Times Games. BanjoZebra (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could make the same argument for some of the other games in The New York Times Games too (Strands perhaps more so than Letter Boxed). That said, to my mind, we're over the WP:N line with the sources we have here (just). Given the significance that this aspect of the NYT business model seems to have taken (see Vanity Fair), I'd be inclined to keep it as we have it for now and see how the whole group of articles evolves. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead remove the maintenance tag for the time being. It seems to me that we have enough to justify the stand-alone article (even if just barely). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
