Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The No Game

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sid Sackson. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The No Game[edit]

A non-notable game that appeared as one game in a book of games. Step hen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was a couple of other games bundled with this AfD, but I decided to split them as the games don't really have that much in common and deserve to receive different deletion discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No — unless further reliable sources can be found for this game, then this fails the "significant coverage" tenet of the general notability guideline. (I leave that search to the author or anyone who knows how to do a search on this without getting a billion ghits from pages saying "this is no game.") MuZemike (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability for the no game. Tavix (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HA! I get all your ribbons! FunkyDuffy (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Tavix (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sid Sackson. All of these games could be described, in a more concise form, as paragraphs in the article. I agree that the fair thing was to split these up as separate nominations, but I will be surprised if any of the games, from Mr. Sackson's book, are notable. Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep!!! its ok, looks good, just find more references, then should be accfeptable.Dcollins52^{Give me a yell} 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I have already tried to. Searching for one in this case is a bit problematic for the reasons I have explained above. MuZemike (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mandsford above. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect — Per Mandsford. roux 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.