Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CirKis

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CirKis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I have a few issues with the CirKis page, in as much as I cannot make a case for it qualifying for notability. The article gets off to a bad start by saying the product is no longer manufactured. Of course that is also true of many very notable historic products, but maybe it did not sell well.

There are two BGG reviews. But in this one (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/456565/review-cirkis) the reviwer deleted his review. In the second (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/820111/purge-47-cirkis-oh-great-abstract) the reviewer sums up his position as "Should I buy this game?: Yes if you like abstracts; no if you do not. I mean it is really that easy. This is a good abstract and if you wanted to try one this is very cheap, quick to play, and pretty good." Make of that what you will.

This video review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZRASQ0G8kk) says it "is not a bad game" but it is "tedious".

This review (http://www.geekyhobbies.com/cirkis-board-game-review-and-rules/) says "CirKis is not a terrible game but it is also not a great game."

As far as a I can work out Tom Vasel has not reviewed it.

So no glowing reviews.

Now apparently it has won some prizes. From the Awards section: "Grand Prix du Jouet 2009 on TricTrac blog / The Creative Child Award".

I will look into the "The Creative Child Award" first. That link is broken and contains no information about a year in the URL. I did manage to find something in the internet archive for the broken link: https://web.archive.org/web/20080913174832/http://www.creativechild.com/toyfinder.html So just looking around Creative Child website it seems that they do not report on who they awarded prizes to in previous years. I did however find out how I should go about getting my creations considered for a prize. https://awards.creativechild.com/enter I think we should all take heart that the fee has been reduced from $150 to a mere $75.

That trictrac blog (in translation) starts: "As every year, the professionals of the toy profession come together to elect the toy grand prizes....." Again I was not able to find an official source for the 2009 winners, the tric trac reference does confirm it for whatever that is worth. However researching the prize I was once again I was able to find out how to submit my inventions. https://grand-prix.larevuedujouet.fr/spip.php?article5 I shall face the minor obstacle that my invention will need to be on sale in France, but the fee will be a much steeper 690 euros.

If you look at the image in the page it is clear that bith prizes were in 2009. In fact that picture has the following source: "We designed the product and took the picture here at Winning Moves. This is our own work." So from this we know that the major editor of the page (Joesequino - 87% by text) is associated with the company. There is a note about this at the top of the page dating back to March 2010.

So these prizes ... do they count as "major awards"?

So the final thing is that I had a look at the page of the inventor: Philip_Orbanes. It seems rather poorly sourced so I suspect it falls short of the BLP policy so I shall put in a delete request for that. Though I rather doubt there is anything libellous in it.Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. It exists, but the reception is not there. It doesn't matter if the reviews are good or bad, but they are very niche, ditto for the awards. I don't think this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if this does not get deleted, does anybody have any proposals for how to improve it?Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the spammy external links, and found an archive for the broken one with details on the game. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found a couple more reviews that don't appear to be associated with the subject: [1] [2]. However, I think the 1977 date is an error - the Winning Moves website suggests development began in 2008. Regardless, this looks like a quirky game and I feel it warrants an article on Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good catch on the year. Also if this page is going to be kept I think we need to cut the Awards section. I don't believe they can be probably verified now, and I don't think they were worth much anyway. So if the sources are considered reliable, and we have a definite plan for cutting out anything that cannot be verified, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. I would just take out any mention of winning an award. The sourcing isn't great but I feel there is just about enough, and it is an interesting topic. I'm not sure whether withdrawing the nomination is allowed however given another editor voted delete. NemesisAT (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just checked WP:AFDHOWTO and I can't withdraw unless Piotrus changes his vote. Anyway before I change mine, I would like to be totally clear. Are you offering/promising to do all the work and on what time frame? Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the two reviews found, can we get an assessment of the reliability of the websites they are posted on? Is there any evidence of editorial controls? Some websites like this are just blogs posting user submissions. If all we have to go with are two borderline niche reviews, I am afraid this still doesn't meet GNG in my book (I'd be happy to consider changing my vote if it is shown that those are not niche websites, but I am not holding my breath). PS. Fr wiki has a link to one of the awards (Grand Prix du Jouet) [3] but it seems dead and IA is 'failing to fetch' at this moment, maybe one of you will have more luck following up on that lead (and fr wiki archive link is likewise broken for me [4]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just going to remove reference to the awards. I already tried very hard to get good sources on the awards before I did the AfD. Specifically I was able to find out about the awards in general. They are both pay to be in the running awards. But they don't publish archives and the wayback machine did not archive them. Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without them, I really don't see what makes this game notable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the process for those awards? To be considered you have to pay a fee. And then they can't be bothered to keep records of previous year's winners. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the mentions of awards now. NemesisAT (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2021 (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.