Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess and Backgammon Classics

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess and Backgammon Classics

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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? Someone another 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Someone another 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

MacLife is a magazine, those are official reviews. Someone another 23:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, all the spam at the bottom lead me to believe that it was a blog. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. Article needs tagged with Refimprove, however. --Teancum (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2010 (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.