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

Melee

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by an etymology of the word. This kind of content can be added to Wiktionary but Wikipedia itself is not a dictionary. I suggest deletion and moving the DAB page to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page clearly extends beyond a WP:DICDEF. The terms use in a variety of contexts such as gaming extends its coverage beyond mere etymology. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG, then please expound on the WP:THREE best sources of significant coverage so that other people in the nomination can see for themselves. I should note that the specific definition of the medieval "melee" tournament is not what this article is actually about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this isn't a dictionary definition article. Instead, it's a stub article on a tactical warfare concept. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, we have an article on that concept already, close-quarters battle. If you are suggesting that a melee is different than close-quarters battle, you will need to explain how, because the article even admits they are the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Simply search "melee combat" and an additional modifier to weed out the computer game books. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am, unfortunately, drawing a blank on outside the tabletop and video game realm. Rather than saying "wow it's so obvious", it would assist if you explained fully how melee combat is not CQB, or at least is different enough for a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard about close quarters combat until right now, but I could have told you that melee combat was close range medieval combat. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found several sources on the form of medieval tournament, but we've got Tournament (medieval)#Melee for that. Furthermore, Melee (tournament) is the former page for that. This page still seems superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was previously AfD'd back in 2015 for similar rationales to the nominator. I'd recommend giving it a read to avoid any restated arguments, especially since I'm seeing a few here from both sides already. I'm personally leaning to a deletion, and then having the DAB page made primary, but I'd like to see what extent of coverage the !Keep votes (@4meter4 and @SportingFlyer) are able to turn up before I make a final assessment. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

AfDs for this article:

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

The references that are presently in the article aren't reliable sources, and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions in, for example, Nature ([1], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([2], "The Free Internet Chess Server (freechess.org) says that it has more than 300,000 users."), but nothing more substantial. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like Linkrot has slain several of the URLs proposed in the prior AfD 14 years ago. Were you able to find anything for those using the Internet Archive? Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the beginning of the New Straits Times article is visible ([3]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([4]) doesn't contain significant coverage of FICS. freechess.50webs.com isn't a reliable source, and the rest of the links aren't specific, just being search results. toweli (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a tough one. The subject is an internet service that started in the earliest days of the web, for which a lot of the sourcing would be web-based, but which reached peak popularity in the era most affected by linkrot. For a bit of history, first there was the Internet Chess Server. The ICS effectively split in two when someone decided to try to commercialize it, forming the subscription-based Internet Chess Club. FICS was started by ICS developers/users who wanted to commit to having a free place to play chess on the internet (this was long before chess.com, lichess, etc.). In the late 90s and early 00s, both ICC and FICS were known by basically every English-speaking internet-connected chess player, and it would be shocking if there weren't enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but linkrot is indeed a concern. In addition to various brief mentions, presence in lists, etc., I see it's been used for several studies e.g. dois 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008367, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005961, and Picussa, J., Ferreira, M. V. R., García, L. S., Direne, A. I., Bueno, J., & Hallberg, G. B. (2007). A User-Interface Environment for an Online Educational Chess Server. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 252–257 (no DOI), which are all available through TWL. Also, I'm not sure Chess Life and other prominent chess publications have ever been fully digitized/searchable, and they would certainly have a few articles that deal with it. At the end of the day, we need notability based on extant sources but we also need enough accessible sources to write an article. While my sense of the subject leads me to !vote Keep, I'd generally add that if accessible sources can't be find, this is at least a Not delete for being an obvious candidate to merge into the Internet Chess Server article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is precisely what I was suspecting/getting at with my above questioning, although I've never been an online chess player. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Just a note that it is important to search in chess source by the acronym FICS as well as by the complete name to see all text referring to the Free Internet Chess Server. There is coverage in the following books (some are in snippet view but the "FOUND INSIDE" view on the search page was promising) and journals: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4meter4's slapdash citing of trivial coverage is precisely not how AfDs are supposed to operate. Rather than saying there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, we should confirm which ones, if any, are significant. From that list it is not confirmable whether SIGCOV exists, and the fact that most are clearly trivial makes me lose faith in whether 4meter4 has actually checked before making that claim. People are free to recreate the page afterwards as a redirect if they add some info from a reliable source to Internet chess server, but there does not seem to be anything to merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Rhodo's sources? Plus, I sampled 4 sources, and all of them had a few paragraphs of significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Being used for studies" does not constitute significant coverage. Whatever the study is researching is what is being covered there, rather than the tools used to accomplish the research. As for the SIGCOV it would help if you said which specific sources, since almost everything I noted was trivial or I could not access enough to determine whether there was sufficient content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I misread Rhodo's sources, sorry about that.
[8], for example. 3 paragraphs describing what it is (and in a major instructional book). It addresses the subject directly and in detail enough to extract the information without OriginalResearch, thus it is SigCov. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I want to provoke you into a delete !vote, all I have to do is cite a bunch of random trivial mentions? I'm sure that's not really the case, but it sounds like you're objecting to what you consider to be an undisciplined source search rather than the notability of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete: or merge per above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:34, 23 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: [23] [24] [25] [26]. 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]

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