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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moot (game)[edit]

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and I have doubts about the game's notability anyway. G W… 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it can be rewritten and wikified. Notability seems to be there, I'll see what I can do. Zoo Fari 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) NOTE Biaswarrior was blocked as a sockpuppet. Drawn Some (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? If the nom believes the game is not notable, (s)he has the right to question that in an AfD. Tavix | Talk 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom just says he has "doubts" about notability but his main concern seems to be an editing issue, not a deletion one. Maybe the nom meant he was sure he didn't believe it was notable, but it wasn't entirely clear. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "doubts", I meant that I didn't think it was notable enough for inclusion, but was not entirely certain. I feel that both the points I raised are currently grounds for deletion. If another editor can rescue the article and provide sources to back up notability, I will happily withdraw the nomination. --G W… 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the problem was it was written like an instruction manual, the solution would be to rewrite, not delete, if it was a notable game. We have articles on many notable board games, obviously. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a fun game, but I cannot find any evidence of notability here, and I used a variety of search terms and phrases. There are a few references for the article, but they're not very in-depth (I'm discounting, for instance, that "Brothers Judd" thing). I hope I'm not being uncivil here, but I am not convinced of notability. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly. It would be great to merge as this game has a real lore associated with it, but nothing I can find in a RS. The boardgamegeek entry for it has very little discussion, but that discussion is interesting. It appears to be self-published... Hobit (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regret, delete. Looks like fun, and I see much in the way of great reviews. Regretfully, I don't see much in the way of notability. even more to the point, I don't see things like this game in my local game shop. Why is this? Sell the dang thing already! =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you have a game shop? Nice... Here, try this... Drmies (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, that's why I'm not seeing it. He doesn't seem to market through game shops. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It is not notable. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 21:28, 9 June 2009 (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.