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

CODA System

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

Non-notable ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has two references, each of which are to a mention on a single page of a book from 2001 and 2011 respectively. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ツ 00:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two reviews from international magazines that specifically talk about the CODA System as the reason that Decipher's Lord of the Rings game was worth playing. Guinness323 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well done finding these sources, but I'm not convinced that this meets WP:SIGCOV. All of this could just be merged to the article for the LOTR roleplaying game. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about sourcing and notability. While some of the current sources are not ideal, I believe the subject is not far away from Wikipedia’s notability standards and can be improved rather than deleted. That said considering that the brand is acknowledged with several awards from SiGMA and SBC, covered on their official websites, and testifying that it is notable for its industry.

The article cites different sources, even though some of the current references may not be ideal, but I am working on researching and adding better sources to strengthen the article. Victoria Gregor (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AD&D module WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun published 1982 originated the fictional deity, making it more familiar in D&D than most. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:SIGCOV level coverage in secondary sources: the refs alluded to by Jclemens, but I also think the Oerth Journal sources can merit mentioning, with the caveat of appropriate weighting and attention to NPOV as per WP:UNDUE. If there are issues with that now, then we can and should fix it as per WP:FAILN as an alternative to deletion. I also prefer keeping the article as opposed to a merge on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS grounds and as per WP:NOPAGE: it is impractical to collect the information into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passed the last AfD and has since only become more popular (inclusion in Critical Role) and has had more refs added. If anything, it is better positioned and sourced now than then. Web Warlock (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty sources out there that go into detail on its role in Critical Role. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passed the last AfD is not a policy based rationale. "I'm sure there are plenty sources" isn't, either. What sources exist? Who is writing about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find them and show how they meet SIGCOV. Otherwise its WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilistraee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Have you also looked at the Google Scholar search? It may well not amount to much, but there are a number of hits which are not "D&D rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely nothing usable there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios We have something from an academic German source (Blume), but it seems to be a passing mention, but maybe you could double check. Other than that, reception has a pathetic listicle entry... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks, I've seen that and added what I've found there. Not a lot, but not trivial either. (And it has become a convoluted sentence again, so if someone can phrase that better...) Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment from the above, [1] is a master's thesis that provides a brief bit of coverage. Certainly counts as a secondary source. [2] appears to be independent use of the character. That's not a lot, but one more source would get me to !vote to keep (maybe weakly depending on the source). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One other source I do find relevant and usable in the Google Scholar search is the PhD thesis "“Sounds Like It's Canon Now”: Texts and/as Truths in Transmedia Franchise Dungeons & Dragons". Has a lot of plot summary on Eilistraee, but also commentary on different characterization in Smedman's novels and earlier rulebooks. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That 2024 dissertation on D&D transmedia has a large focus on Eilistraee & the impact of Lisa Smedman's Lady Penitent trilogy on D&D narrative (pg232-269). I didn't go through every collection available in the Wikipedia Library but I went through some of the larger ones (JSTOR, ProQuest, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc) and that dissertation was the only hit for "Eilistraee". Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, there's still way too much gameguide stuff here. Would this be better addressed as a pantheon article? Of course, that's complicated by different pantheons in different iterations of D&D... Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reception to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities mention of this deity, as it is not fancruft, like 99% of this article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corellon Larethian might be a decent target if the decision is to merge (similar to Lolth being merged to Drow); in the Forgotten Realms fiction, Eilistraee is his daughter and she' already highlighted a bit in that article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the reception we have now would be bolstered with said PhD thesis, and the plot summary would be trimmed back to an amount balanced with the non-plot sections of Publication history and Reception (and in part Background), we would have a non-stubby article which fullfils WP:NOTPLOT and has enough based on secondary source to fullfil WP:WHYN, i.e. a notable topic. That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge, though my preferred target in such a case would be the Drow article in parallel to the discussion on Lolth. The commentary on Eilistraee we have now is closely related to the drow. Maybe a bit less so in the PhD thesis. List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Corellon Larethian are also related topics and fine as merge targets, but in my view somewhat less suited. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. Much of this lacks proper sourcing, or even violates WP:NOT. This is the normal basis for deleting or redirecting, but I see that the several keep !voters would also support a merge. Supporting this per WP:ATD and per WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion