Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Go to Jail

Don't Go to Jail

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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: [1]. 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: [2]. The site seems fairly reliable, its editorial policies appear to be very good: [3], [4], and it is cited by other sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Plus there's a print magazine review by de:Spielbox that briefly mentions the game: [11]. 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]