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

Sagar Shah

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

Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Interview sources are more than fine. There are plenty of them: e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Perlen vom Bodensee is not just a blog, [8], it is a very reliable source, also trusted by de-wp, for what it's worth. - Squasher (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go to Jail

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

I originally proposed the deletion of this article with the concern, "This article only cites a primary source, while the rest of it is unsourced. I tried searching for secondary sources (including books and scholars) but found none. Therefore, this topic most likely fails the general notability guideline." User:BOZ then removed the PROD and suggested that the article be merged to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs, which I thought would be inappropriate because all of its text is pretty much unsalvageable, not to mention that the one primary source used to cite one sentence is now a permanent dead link. There was also the suggestion of redirecting to said page, which I was a bit skeptical about because the only mention of it there cites About.com (known today as Dotdash Meredith), which is a situational source according to the perennial sources list. (For the reliability of the source in the context of board games, I'll leave that up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games.) Basically, I'm still favoring this article's deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs. The author of About.com review counts as subject matter expert (cited by New York Times, Tuscaloosa News, NPR). There's also a review by spieletest.at: [9]. Author is Arno Steinwender, who seems to be a notable board game designer, could also be counted as a subject matter expert. About.com review is too short to count as WP:SIGCOV and so there's not enough sources for a keep but I think merge is appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that. There were some additional sources mentioned at Talk:Don't Go to Jail#Sources which should also be considered if content is to be moved there. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to check the talk page. So the game was reviewed by Reich der Spiele: [10]. The site seems fairly reliable, its editorial policies appear to be very good: [11], [12], and it is cited by other sources: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Plus there's a print magazine review by de:Spielbox that briefly mentions the game: [19]. 2 standard reviews, 1 short one, and 1 brief mention. Enough for a keep I think. --Mika1h (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WinZO

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues from previous AfDs have not been resolved in this recent recreation of the article. Namely, the sources still do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and thus fail to establish notability. Also, the third AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winzo was mistakenly closed as "soft delete", as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZO and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinZO (2nd nomination) already previously existed. GTrang (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version of the article shows clear evidence of notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Unlike the earlier drafts, it now includes substantial independent coverage from major, reliable news sources such as Reuters, Economic Times, Forbes India, and Inc42. These sources discuss not just funding or product launches, but significant developments like legal disputes with Hike, an antitrust complaint against Google being investigated by the Competition Commission of India, and real-world policy engagement around platform regulations.

The company has also shown measurable financial success. It reported over ₹1,000 crore in revenue in FY 2023–24 and a profit of over ₹300 crore, which is independently reported and verifiable. The platform is expanding internationally, including a $25 million investment to launch in Brazil, again covered by independent sources.

The article now meets notability criteria because it documents more than routine coverage, it includes sustained, in-depth reporting on conflicts, legal challenges, and its role in shaping digital policy. This is a notable player in India's online gaming and digital economy space. Previous concerns about PR-heavy content or lack of depth no longer apply. Recommend retaining the article. Sahi1up (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an WP:LLM rationale. Nathannah • 📮 20:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Websites, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and India. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The applicable guideline for this page since it is a company would be WP:ORGCRIT. None of the sources fall under that as they are all churnalism, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. LKBT (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Repeated recreations suggest a need to WP:SALT the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all material seems promotional. we are now at afd #4, so salting is necessary Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some press release type articles, but there are enough sources to establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. What sources? I can only see press releases, incidental mentions, and quotations. Searched for a bit in Scholar and Proquest. FalconK (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Falcon Kirtaran I don't see any press releases. Several citations are actually down, so I cannot say if they are press releases, but besides those we have a few that are not press release, such as Financial Express, EconomicTimes, and Inc24. Which do you refer to as a press release? Press release should clearly state that it is a press release and often has company info such as the ABOUT section and contact info on the bottom. Maybe you are mistaking articles that were written based on announcements, but in my opinion an article written based on company announcement as long as not copied word by word is considered a legit coverage. If that was not the case, majority of of wiki articles should be deleted. For example if Apple announced a new OS, should all the articles written about it be considered a press release, hence we should not have such articles used as a citation? I see that I may be in the minority opinion here, but if I am wrong, please point me out the proper Wiki policy regarding what is considered a press release. Darkm777 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases often do not directly state that they are a press release, but they generally present single-source un-analyzed factual information that is ultimately sourced from the company's own announcement. Often times, news outlets will republish press releases verbatim or nearly verbatim; this does not amount to notability.

There are a great, great many Wikipedia articles about companies that should be deleted, because for some reason many people view it as important that their company have a Wikipedia article. This, as decided before so many times, is one of them. It is for this that salt is the right answer.

The Financial Express article you post is a perfect example of a dependent reference published by a media outlet. It does not go to notability because it would need to be an independent source. A dependent source is one that relies primarily on the subject itself as a source for information; that article is mostly literal quotes from the subject. The second article I cannot read. The third, from Inc24, is different; it is a dependent source of WinZo and Hike together, and describes only the lawsuit; the single event does not make for significance. In general there should be many sources about many different topics. That is part of why this article is so commonly deleted. I am amending my !vote to include salt. FalconK (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AND SALT per nom. Not much improvement from its previous versions on mentioned issues if possible, while also repeatedly recreated enough to deserve salting. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free Parking

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

With a due diligence search, I have found no reliable sources showing significant coverage of this topic. Also, if this topic were a person, an animal, an organization, web content, or an event, (which it's not any of those), it would've met speedy deletion criterion A7. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There is a possibility that there might be some coverage in (board) gaming magazines from the 1980s when the game first came out but I don't know what they would be or where to find them. Here is a review from a gaming blog, I'm not sure if this counts for notability. There is already a mention of it at Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs so redirect there is appropriate. Moritoriko (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move, redirect, & disambiguate. Free parking currently redirects to Parking#Economics with a hatnote mentioning Free Parking. This is good; "parking that is free" is clearly the PTOPIC since the game is not notable. This page should do something similar, with care to preserve page history and existing links/redirects. My preference would be:

Move Free Parking to Free Parking (game).
Redirect Free Parking (game) to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs per Moritoriko.
Redirect Free Parking to Parking#Economics, with a hatnote pointing to Free Parking (game).

Messy process, but sensible result. Anerdw (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs. I looked at the issues of Games magazine from 1988 and 1989 on the Internet Archive, and it wasn't mentioned once as far as I could tell. No reviews, no listing among the year's best games, not even an advertisement. Maybe there are reliable sources out there, but they will have to be found before this article can be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to let you all know that the mention of Free Parking in Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs cites About.com (which we all know today as Dotdash Meredith). According to Wikipedia:RSPS, there is no consensus about Dotdash's reliability, so it should only be used situationally. I don't know about the reliability of the source in the context of Monopoly spin-off games. 1isall (talk/contribs) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the section the subsection is in (Monopoly (game)#Related games) currently has this tag:

1isall (talk/contribs) 12:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked the Internet Archive which was difficult due to many false positive regarding the name. I do not know if they would help with notability at all, but I found these:

The false positives from the name definitely made it a challenge, so there is probably more out there. Adding the name of the designer Charles Phillips or the slogan "Feed the Meter" helped weed out the false positives a little bit. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are substantially all the same thing. They are the first edition, the second edition, and a French translation of the same book: Philip Orbanes' The Monopoly Companion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ping me if this is improved, but for now the article is poor (unreferenced OR), and sources discussed here are weak. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have rewritten the article and added two sources, both websites that explain and review board games. Both seem to be editorially independent and are not a shill to sell the games they review. For that reason, I would suggest that the game seems to be notable. Guinness323 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that you added are Geeky Hobbies and Fun Board Games. The reliability of both of them is unclear, so I will go over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask about them there. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Guinness323, also with my sources found above in case they are useful somehow. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sources seem reliable in context (are we really thinking they aren't reliable in their coverage of games?) but aren't great as noted. GNG is met. Editorially I think this might be better as a merge, but AfD is generally for notability arguments and this seems over the bar--take it to the talk page if you want a merge or redirect here. Hobit (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know AFD's could get relisted, too. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion