Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

See also Sports-related deletions and Video games-related deletions.


[edit]

Dice pool

[edit]
Dice pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Effectively unreferenced, outside few mentions of this in particular games. While my BEFORE confirms that the terms appear here and there, I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this. This seems to fail WP:V and WP:GNG. Not sure if redirecting this do dice is even warranted. Note that the article is also incorrect - it limits this concept to RPGs, but it also appears in board games (but it is really a very niche and minor part of all such games). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I sorted through about 8-10 hits in Google Scholar to come up with three that I believe appropriately demonstrate this mechanic is covered adequately in RS to meet GNG.
    Liu, A. J. (2022). Icepool: Efficient Computation of Dice Pool Probabilities. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, 18(1), 258-265. https://doi.org/10.1609/aiide.v18i1.21971 Wonderful paper, totally about dice pools, from the proceedings of a conference I've actually heard about.
    Ovard, Caleb, "Your Mission, Should You Choose to Attempt it, is to Save the Mona Lisa! Gamification as a Method for Teaching Art" (2023). Theses and Dissertations. 10236. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/10236 Very detailed discussion with examples of dice pool mechanics. It's a master's thesis, not published elsewhere.
    T. Mott, M. Higger, A. Bejarano and T. Williams, "Degrees of Freedom: A Storytelling Game that Supports Technology Literacy about Social Robots," 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), Pasadena, CA, USA, 2024, pp. 2095-2102, doi: 10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731340. Could say more about the dice pool, really just describes its use and origin, but it's a journal from a very well respected professional society. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added one of the above sources as a definition of the term, and have referenced a game designer's article to explain why the dice pool is used in games. I think a lot of the other material in the article could be shortened or even removed, but as it stands, I believe the article now explains the term and is accurately sourced.Guinness323 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everything found and added by Jclemens and Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef RPG

[edit]
Chef RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referenced only two primary sources from YouTube and a web store. Before search did not present anything that makes this game notable for an entry here Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranged weapon

[edit]
Ranged weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. No evidence this is anything besides an arbitrary classification, a distinction that may have emerged from tabletop gaming given that I mostly get hits from D&D manuals when searching the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - An ambiguous classification based on original research which doesn't see real use outside the videogame or tabletop world.
Golem08 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLAY: The Games Festival

[edit]
PLAY: The Games Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (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.

Melee

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Melee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments divided betwen Keep and Deleting it and moving a DAB page to this title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that another relevant article is Hand-to-hand combat, which is essentially close-quarters combat, but without ranged weapons, and more focused on history, although a good part of it currently (emphasis) focuses on unarmed combat. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambiguation, which should include Hand-to-hand combat -- a melee appears to usually just mean "a chaotic hand-to-hand combat"; the only stipulation is the hand-to-hand combat article refers to close-range weapons only and not guns, etc. so the Close-quarters battle should also be linked because the phrase "a chaotic melee with guns" is valid. Current content of the article is largely an etymology (a very nice etymology, but it still belongs in a dictionary), and does not need to be merged. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Toadspike. When I search JSTOR for the phrase "Melee combat" I get 29 results. Could you please re-do the search and tell us the exact number you get. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on "melee" and then selected those in the history category. This gave me 11,766 results. Not all are on melee combat, but there are many there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GHITS. For all we know, 11,765 of them are just trivial mentions. This is not a policy-based argument unless actual sources are brought forth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't use quotes around the term. I've gone back to the Wikipedia Library's EBSCO search to find THREE (actually four) good sources with indisputably significant coverage: [1] and [2] (two similar MEDRS-level sources on stress in melee combat), [3] (the whole article is about women in research on melee combat, but it only says "melee" once, later uses refer to "the topic of discourse" or "the subject of this analysis"), [4] (about the specific use of "melee" to refer to tournaments).
I also see plenty of sources on Roman infantry tactics that mention "melee", including this one that says "Polybius’ battle narratives largely support the notion of melee combat constituting the main stage of infantry combat on the battlefield. Other Greek and Roman historians seem to fit our proposed model as well." and this one this one about melee depicted in classical art. While these don't use the specific word "melee" as much, they show the significance of the concept in classical history.
That said, I would still support a merge to hand-to-hand combat as an ATD. Toadspike [Talk] 09:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike There's definitely some good coverage here regarding melee combat. I'm a bit concerned, though, about the overlap between melee and other types of close quarters combat, since I'm not sure if they're synonyms or acting as two distinct forms of combat in this context, especially since a few of these mention both in the same article, though melee seems to be the one most predominantly used. Would you be willing to clarify on this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far it still seems like the best option is: Move to "melee combat", redirect to hand-to-hand combat as a total WP:OVERLAP, then put the DAB in this place. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Free Internet Chess Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 ([5], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([6], "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 ([7]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([8]) 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]
    Though not easily searchable, Chess Life is available on line. I haven't found a better way to search it than googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com" + search term. Googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com FICS" yields a few hits but also a lot of false positives. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 28 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: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 19 and the Sage journal are inaccessible in their entirety. Could you give an overview of what their contents are? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 28 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]
    If you cite 20 trivial mentions, then I'm probably not going to read through all of them and pick out what few, if any, are significant. People are not required to check every single source carefully before !voting. The admin can determine whether someone is being negligent with their vote and discount it, but frankly they're not likely to bother either because the burden is on the article creator, not them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I made several edits to the page, adding some citations, reorganizing, and removing a lot of the poorly sourced how-to material. Some of the sources aren't going to help notability, but a few are, so I'll draw your attention to (a) a recent book, The Chess Revolution, where it looks like FICS comes up on several pages. My Google Books preview is limited, but it's clear it's more than brief mentions. (b) an article in The Chicago Chess Player is exactly the sort of thing we'd see more of if this weren't in the early/pre-web era. Most chess publications at the time would've had articles on FICS, either on its own or as part of the ICS/ICC saga or in the context of internet chess more broadly. If folks have archives of Chess Life or the various regional publications, it would be worth a scan of issues from the latter half of the 90s. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicago Article appears to start on page 9 Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of comments:
  • Chess Life is indeed available online, at [27]. It can be painfully slow to load, for example, the issues for one year (such as 1996), but once loaded, they are easily searched. I am a subscriber, and I don't remember reading anything about FICS in it from back then, but that was a long time ago. I heard about FICS on the forums, where the drama of the split between ICC and FICS played out. I do not play online chess, but you couldn't miss that if you were on chess forums.
  • This AfD looks like a follow-up to, or precursor of, the recent AfD of Free Internet Backgammon Server (FIBS), which ended in deletion. If we end up keeping this one, perhaps we should apply the same search techniques to find more substantial sources for the other one. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of what could be called "internetism", a strain of deletionism that asserts that if something cannot be easily found on the internet then it isn't notable. FIBS was indeed a significant early backgammon site and still functioning today. Afd's such as this one only add to Wikipedia's inherent WP:RECENTISM bias, in which for example recent sports events are given significantly more detailed coverage than earlier ones. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in The Chicago Chess Player includes an interview with Daniel Sleator by "Tim Krabb" [sic], "for an article in New In Chess magazine about Internet chess (which will appear mid-May". So if anyone has access to 1996 issues of NIC, that looks like an excellent place to look Bruce leverett (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I agree there seems to be some concerns over the depth of coverage, I do have to concur with Zx that 4meter4's sources are a bit hit or miss. A large chunk just briefly mention the server as a host for something, or the fact it exists. A few sources seem promising (Such as a few of the book sources) but those I'm unable to access in their entirety, so I can't gauge their depth of coverage properly. I won't vote one way or the other just yet since I'd like to see some more research be done into some of these sources, but I do feel this discussion would benefit from a more thorough BEFORE. If nothing else springs up in the next few days, I'll take a look myself. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Rhododendrites. To be sure, this kind of early-web topic is tricky to source with sources Wikipedia considers reliable, but while borderline, it does appear that this is on the keepable side of the line to me. I wouldn't exactly use this AFD as precedent elsewhere but it seems like there is sufficient coverage, even if I wouldn't hold my breath for this becoming a FA. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources, exactly, compelled you to !vote Keep? Given the lack of explanation from others with the same opinion, apparently taking the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES standpoint, it would be useful to know, as I might even do the same if I saw some excellent sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I agree with you that we lack excellent sources. Just that sometimes 20 weak sources or passing references can be enough. It's not optimal, but it's workable. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Games&oldid=1260892591"