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

Jeringonza

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

I don't feel very strongly about this one, however it was noted in the recent RM discussion (which I closed) that this article lacks sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately a check of the other two wikis this is on demonstrates a lack of overall sourcing for this topic. This could be deleted, or alternatively redirected to a related topic such as Pig Latin, which seems fairly similar. On the off chance the sourcing is improved while this is listed here, we can always have another RM to discuss the spelling, as it will be relevant at that point. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Spain, and South America. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Kisei

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The page is a record of a tournament, rather than an encyclopedia page. The contest has run since 1977, but there have been no individual pages since 2008. I've put some through PROD, but some have been dePRODed in 2008, 2010 & 2013 (22, 24 & 25). This one (20th) went to AfD in 2007. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Blackballnz (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blackballnz: per WP:BEFORE, what is your assessment of the Japanese sources on various Kisei editions? MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I don't read Japanese but would welcome the involvement of someone who does. Of the articles listed above, around half have no sources at all. The rest are sourced to links with similar tournament information, which could not be said to be independent. Many of these articles have no leads. When 20th Kisei went to AFD in 2007, editors said they would work to bring them up to standard. That as 18 years ago, and very little has changed. The articles above relate to the years 1977 - 2007. In recent years, there have been no articles, but all the winners are listed on Kisei (Go). Blackballnz (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. So note for the closer and other participants: someone should assess the existing sources WP:BEFORE deciding here. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 23rd Kisei was prodded and deleted earlier this year. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable whatsoever, can easily be merged into Buddha if it were notable Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Buddhism. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no benefit as a list. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buddha per nom (WP:NOTSTATS) JTZegers (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTSTATS apply here? I don't see the relation. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't appear there are any new reasons to claim non-notability that weren't raised last time, and just repeating the nomination to seek a different result isn't good practice. The same list occurs in multiple distinct locations in the canon, indicating that it is a distinct thing in itself and not just a random point of doctrine on the same level as any other. It has also been discussed in multiple sources other than Buddhism-related sources, as having historical interest of a broader kind, in particular as the earliest reference to blindfold chess (or a predecessor thereof). Again, this is interest in the thing itself not only as part of one bigger thing, so there is reason for it to have an article of its own. And that interest is not served by just mentioning the fact that there is a list; the historical interest benefits from seeing the list itself. It is not "statistics"; I don't know how WP:NOTSTATS would be relevant. And because this list is closed - it is not expected to have items added or deleted in the future - it does not have some of the practical problems that lists in Wikipedia often have. Consider whether the Seven deadly sins ought to be merged into Jesus; it's not clear there is a qualitative difference. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not like a comparison between the seven deadly sins and Jesus, this is like a comparison between "Foods that Jesus would not eat" and Jesus. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a better analogy exists isn't a deletion criterion. Neither is the number of edits I have made, nor someone's opinion of whether the Buddha had bigger things to worry about than what the Pali Canon says he taught. What can be said about actual deletion criteria? 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing useful for merging. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pointless and its accuracy is questionable at best. The buddha had bigger things to worry about than hopscotch and charades. 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject is notable, the sourcing isn't stellar but seems sufficient to establish notability. The deletion rationale is really weak and nothing has changed since the last nomination. I do question whether this is most appropriately presented as a list, and I wonder if that is contributing to the repeated nomination. An article with the list as its subject seems more appropriate. (For example its Ten commandments, not List of commandments given to Moses.) AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2607. jp×g 🗯️ 04:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting page with enough sourcing to appear valid. Doesn’t directly pertain to either games or Buddha and would be a distraction on either site. 02:16, 10 May 2025 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Re: claims of inaccuracy, sources supporting such claims would be welcome. Sojup (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely attested, notable on its own and it's the Buddha. We don't need to merge it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion