Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

WP:DSGAMES

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Games-related deletions

Dobbert

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - article has been unsourced since its inception. The sketchy source that I found earlier in November turns out to be cribbed from Marble (toy) anyway. My WP:BEFORE found no other mention of the word dobbert to mean a marble. So I do not think that this is sufficiently notable. N.B. https://archive.org/details/glossaryoflancas00nodauoft/page/106/mode/2up has dobber as does https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/dabber_n2, but not dobbert. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and United Kingdom. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails verification; I found the same as above. I also have to say that I don't think WP is the place for a glossary of regional British slang, and never mind the questionable "just-so" story of its origin. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Francis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Purple francis. Article is about a joke character, which was BLARed in 2021 because of a lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the stated blar reasoning. seemed more like an editor not liking it, despite at least two others having agreed before that it did meet the gng

that aside, keep. for better or worse (definitely worse), purple francis does have those reliable sources on him. still no prejudice against draftifying or userifying, since its prose might be a little undercooked for mainspace, but i don't think it's anything that can't be done in around an hour and 9 minutes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Left 4 Dead (franchise). This is a very small Stub primarily filled with a lot of information about Purple Francis's in-universe information. There is very little coverage showing Purple Francis's actual impact and popularity that can't be just be summarized in one sentence. It warrants a mention, but it's not necessary for this to have a separate article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also fair, to be honest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the franchise article. Coverage is not SUSTAINED and the incident could be covered with a sentence or two in the franchise article, if that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. The coverage is trivial, and doesn't have significant reception or analysis. I'd also support a redirect, but merge is a good compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Internet Backgammon Server

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The linked book does not contain significant coverage of FIBS. The article was kept in a 2008 discussion, but the arguments presented there wouldn't hold up today. toweli (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of trivial mentions in books etc. but nothing substantial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Trivial mentions on Newspapers.com as well. Timur9008 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wagerweb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, and a search for sources sufficient to save this article was not successful. Just the occasional sports betting churnalism/SEO, and a few passing mentions nearly 20 years ago about hurricane betting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Oxford Handbook of Sports Economics Volume 2 list it as one of only eight active Sportsbooks in the world. At a bare minimum, we should at least selective merge this to Sportsbook.4meter4 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked sources says that it's one of the eight sources that make up the data that Sports Insights presents to their subscribers. There are far more than eight active sportsbooks in the world, and there certainly were back then as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A passing mention in a 12 year old reliable source is insufficient to establish notabilty in 2024. Wikipedia should not be a guidebook to non-notable gambling websites that lack significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Only notable entities should be mentioned in an article like Sportsbook, which is highly susceptible to spam and promotional editing. Cullen328 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Sports, Websites, and Costa Rica. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to nominate this myself once the article was stable, but then I got busy with other things. Tessaract2^Hi! 13:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ponytail canasta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this card game in reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be appropriate because there's no mention of Ponytail Canasta in the main Canasta article. Also per WP:NOTHOWTO. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Uruguay, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly. I could find no WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canasta. A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable. A brief mention at the main Canasta article, with this redirected there, would be sufficient invitation for anyone who likes it enough to expand, possibly spin it out later if notability can be established. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but I haven't been able to find sourcing that's reliable and adequate to even write a full sentence other than to say "something by this name exists" in the main Canasta article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's adequate, since Canasta is unquestionably notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can any of these sourcess rescue the article: [1] [2] [3] [4]. If yes, I may help. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those seem reliable to me, unfortunately. The first two a labeled as WP:BLOGS, the third is an online gaming platform, and the fourth is from an extremely web 1.0 with no indication of who wrote it, which I would imagine is self published. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and expand/improve. The historical context provided already clearly goes beyond a dicdef, and it would be astonishing if there were not more sources for this concept, in light of the popularity of games using such a system. BD2412 T 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of BD2412, and I suspect I could have said the same of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee weapon if I had noticed that discussion. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, those sources have not been demonstrated. Saying you assume sources will be discovered sometime in the future is not a sufficient rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar returns 21,400 hits for a search for "melee in role playing games" (notably, some specifically reference Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is a melee-themed fighting game with popular Nintendo characters, not yet mentioned in this article). BD2412 T 04:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While melee is commonly used as a term in gaming and I cannot deny that, I cannot find evidence that the term is notable in itself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang book. A term has to pass GNG to have an article. Simply being used as part of an unrelated scholarly paper is an incidental and trivial use.

In terms of SSB Melee, the word is used to reference its original meaning of a physical fight. It doesn't have anything to do with the game terminology described in this article. The subsequent game is called "Brawl", also meaning a physical fight.

The best I can see for this article is being redirected to Role-playing game terms or Glossary of video game terms like many similar articles of its kind have been. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect it when there is cited content that could be merged? I could see a merge to Melee. BD2412 T 18:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term is more adequately defined at Wiktionary's definition: [5]. This is just a dictionary definition with no significant coverage discussing why this terminology is important beyond just being a word in the gamer lexicon. All above arguments for keeping have assumed coverage exists, so unless sourcing turns up, I'm siding with the nom, who seems to have done a well-researched BEFORE. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a (gaming terminology) article, it contains significant original research. I would merge/redirect to Role-playing game terms or delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ The entomology of the word is probably notable given the sources. At the least there are sources that seem count toward WP:N. A merge to Little Wars is another possibility, but I'm not thrilled with that given how short that article is... Hobit (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This is yet another WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Unless said sources can be definitively shown, such arguments should be seen as holding no water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to everyone: This is yet another "I didn't read the article but I have an opinion anyways" comment. What I'm trying to say is that's it's rude to talk past someone like that. The sources I'm referring to are in the article. If you don't like those sources, please explain why or ask. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit on your sources point:

-The first two sources appear to be trivial mentions that just mention that the terminology of melee was used here. Mentions like this, especially for word definitions, need to have stronger substance. If it was a full few paragraphs discussing the importance of the melee term within the context of the games, or as a whole, for example, there'd be stronger substance here.

-The second two (3 and 4) don't mention melee at all, and are just mentioning that the rules of the game made by Wells carried on afterward. This pertains to Wells's games, not to the melee terminology.

-Source 5 doesn't even mention melee, again pertaining to how the rules of Wells's games were adapted to another medium. Source 6 mentions melee, but doesn't elaborate upon them and instead is just using the terminology like a person with game familiarity would. The source isn't about melee at all, and is just stating that melee is involved with it.

Basically everything in this is a trivial mention of the term, and around half the sources don't mention the term at all. This is primarily about Wells's games, not about the term melee. There's no independent notability shown with these sources, especially given there's no real Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego has summed up my opinion on it as well, I can't disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback folks--I agree there isn't enough to meet WP:N. Limited Merge to Melee per BD2412 is where I am now. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with that outcome as well. BD2412 T 02:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect An article isn't the appropriate way to cover this. I have my doubts that this meets WP:SIGCOV without violating WP:OR, by cobbling together a lot of different sources that use this in a lot of different contexts. But there is a Glossary of video game terminology that would make a good target. I'm also open to other ideas. The point is that the topic may not even be called "melee" but also "close combat" or "swordplay" or "hack and slash", and it's better to try to create a unified topic than to have an article for every dictionary definition. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, Glossary of video game terminology would not be a good target page because it is a Redirect. It should show up as a green link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World's Worst Boardgame

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources, secondary sources seem to be YT WP:USERG. A quick WP:BEFORE on Google doesn't show any media articles of note. Some unsourced statements. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-ish: I have rewritten the article, which I found a bit disjointed, and found another source which seems to have an independent editorial stance. I would fall on the side of a "week Keep" for the article. If another independent source could be found, I would upgrade to a strong Keep. Guinness323 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for updating - with all respect, stuff like GotGameTesters and anything on BoardGameGeek would seem to be WP:USERG? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicebreaker is the only reliable source but the article is not significant coverage, there's only a short paragraph talking about World's Worst Boardgame. --Mika1h (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only because WP:ILIKEIT. I know this is an WP:IAR vote, but this honestly was such an entertaining little article. I'm still chuckling.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone want to transwiki this to https://board-games.fandom.com/wiki/Board_Games_Wiki ? -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion