Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess and Backgammon Classics
- Chess and Backgammon Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Needs to be wikified, not enough information and too specific of a game. Whenaxis (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Well, your first two grievances are clean-up issues rather than problems requiring deletion, I'm not sure what you mean by "too specific of a game", apparently these were split into two separate games a week after release ([1]), is that what you mean? [2], [3], [4], [5] < There's enough sources to establish notability so I'm not seeing a problem, could you elaborate please Whenaxis? Someoneanother 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the two grievances are clean-up issues but its issues that can be discussed as an AfD such as very little information, one reference (plus it has to be a third-party website not its own). Also, when I say its too specific of a game I meant that this game seems oddly similar to many other games that can be found on the iPod, computer and internet. Also, its too specific being a chess and backgammon game and an iPod game so what if its an iPod game? Most games and apps on the iPod don't even make it too Wikipedia because its not notable enough (like this one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenaxis (talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes there are numerous chess video games, but then there's lots of cars with four wheels and a whole bunch of music singles released by Madonna, there's no reason to delete them and the presence (or lack of) iPhone game articles isn't a reason to delete this particular one either. This game is notable, the secondary sources I've posted above are non-trivial and come from reliable sources which is all the guideline asks for. Someoneanother 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the two grievances are clean-up issues but its issues that can be discussed as an AfD such as very little information, one reference (plus it has to be a third-party website not its own). Also, when I say its too specific of a game I meant that this game seems oddly similar to many other games that can be found on the iPod, computer and internet. Also, its too specific being a chess and backgammon game and an iPod game so what if its an iPod game? Most games and apps on the iPod don't even make it too Wikipedia because its not notable enough (like this one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenaxis (talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- weak Keep www.maclife.com sources look like a blog to me, though I didn't check carefully. Still other sources seem fine if not overly detailed... Hobit (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- MacLife is a magazine, those are official reviews. Someoneanother 23:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)