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. Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dice tower[edit]

[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)

Not notable; this may be a novelty, but it doesn't gain significant coverage in reliable sources, unaffiliated with a specific manufacturer. Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower might also be non-notable. I found this article about a roman artifact, which touches on the Roman usage. Modern usage, on the other hand, is simply not documented in any reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 19:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Absurd nomination which proves itself wrong by citing a good source. It is easy to find more coverage such as Roman Artefacts and Society, "The use of a dice tower to prevent cheating by preventing handling of the throwing pieces is the subject of an epigram by Martial. Examples of the dice towers themselves are known from the archaeological record...". Andrew D. (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a couple of sentences of coverage. Even if there exist a hundred photos of these things, we would want actual significant coverage of them. Also, does WP:FART not apply to insignificant old artifacts? wumbolo ^^^ 22:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My view remains that WP:SKCRIT #2 applies and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – while the article needs some sources, it is a significant topic and clearly notable. I found this scientific journal article that proves its lasting significance, and now I see that the same article is actually mentioned in the nomination statement as evidence that it's not "modern" enough! I agree with Andrew - this is absurd. Brad v 04:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. --Doncram (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with fairness to the nominator, this one's actually really hard: I see a lot of hits talking about the "Roman Dice Tower" which is actually the Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower, but they are either not from reliable sources or just a photo as it's an interesting looking artifact. Most of the sources that I see that are good have already been mentioned in this AfD, along with [1]. Trying to add a source to the article isn't easy, either: I thought I could source the "dice tumbler" backgammon line most easily and no luck with that after about eight minutes. I don't think it's a delete off of WP:NEXIST due to the Roman history bit, but I can't argue for a keep at the moment, and it's far from an "absurd" nomination. SportingFlyer talk 15:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to be nice, and I agree we shouldn't bash deletion nominators all the time. The photo in the article is hugely powerful/convincing/interesting though and on its own it really makes the article a keeper, IMHO, irregardless of other sources. I am not sure if you allude to other photos too, but the one photo really is worth a thousand words. --Doncram (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but I don't see how you would write an encyclopedia article from one without any SYNTH. Very interesting it may be, but sources (via NEXIST if not actual substantial mentions) will be the best argument. The pictures are all on Commons, so that doesn't really affect deletion here. 139.216.48.47 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an encyclopedia article has been written. And it has 3 nice pictures now. I don't see any problems with it. There are no citations currently, but there are also no controversial assertions which might require sourcing. There is nothing questioned or debated at all, no tags, no issues raised at Talk page. It is fine. I think we should be done here. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They'd be notable for their modern gaming use, but especially so give the documented Roman history. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For both their interesting history (which I hadn't been aware of - neat!), and their modern use. The Cambridge article posted above by Bradv demonstrates historical significance. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is historic evidence for their existence, including at least one artifact, as already mentioned. Scarcity of artifacts should not be an exclusion principle, otherwise the Archeopteryx wouldn't deserve an entry either ;-) Also, this hints at a second, Egyptian artifact: [2] 2001:6B0:2:2801:E581:50B6:5B4C:D99E (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2018 (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.