Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Monopoly

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. Big Dom 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Monopoly

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

The whole existence of this article constitutes a point of view WP:NPOV.

The key information on this page is already covered on Monopoly (game) and in History of Monopoly a single extra sentence in the Monopoly (game)#Variants could cover this article.

The game is not distinct enough from monopoly to be considered as anything other than a variant, The game board is almost identical to monopoly the board layout box design. Earlier games such as Go for broke involved reversing the monopoly objective.

The game has mention in RS because of the news event which is already covered on the monopoly pages. The opening statement that the game was "invented in response to monopoly" is uncitable from RS. The image of the game poses an issue as it the cover art rights belong to a different entity as Anti-Monopoly is a trademark owned by Hasbro

The RS come from the story of the Lawsuit and are only indirectly about the game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Ralph Anspach, merge any worthwhile content there. I checked and couldn't find any other sources. The most notable feature of the game is the lawsuit generated by it, which should be covered in the Ralph Anspach article. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This article topic is ~~just as~~ notable ~~as the Free Parking, Monopoly Tycoon, Monopoly: The Mega Edition, etc. board game articles~~. The game is distinct enough from Monopoly to warrant a separate article and is not affiliated with the Parker Brothers version. This acceptable source is referenced in the article and more info can be added to the article from it. Info can also be sourced from the game's official site. Restructuring and copy-editing should be performed on the article, but the WP:NPOV doesn't apply for a deletion argument since it does not appear there are any opinions or non-neutral statements currently in the body of the article. The "Related Games" section contains one or two unsourced statements such as "was and is very popular", but this can easily be edited out. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT It doesn't matter if similar articles exist. Each article need to demonstrate notability on its own by providing sources, or by the sources at least existing. After searching for them myself, I have come to the conclusion that there aren't sources to demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment—1 and 2 are both sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment not really relevant to the discussion but I am not sure that #1 the washington free press which is community journalism and has facts that are inconsistent with other sources on the legal issues and carries and advert is a RS.Tetron76 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-Monopoly is covered in a wide variety of sources[1] (a few of which are already cited in the article), and while the coverage is mostly about the trademark dispute, that coverage is lasting: the dispute became a significant benchmark in trademark law, discussed in many casebooks. With respect to the suggested merger to Ralph Anspach, I'm inclined to think that's backwards; it appears to me that the game is more notable than the person.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the WSJ covers the game and its controversy, it's sufficient. While the GNG expects multiple RS, the WSJ is so definitive that a single substantial article there is plenty of coverage to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a fan of Monopoly, I vote for "keep" per above comments. I see nothing against WP:NPOV.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

important information BTG Project guidance For a games article should include boardgamegeek in this case an ad page so invalid but it mentions two very important facts [2]

There has been more than one game called Anti-Monolpoly. It is not clear which game is being referred to in the articles
it is a self-published game if this was a self published book would it get a wiki page.

Also should include the official game page [3]:

this is an attack page which is primarily against monopoly than on the game itself.

The page also clearly demonstrated that the authors book cannot be regarded as RS for information on

the game. This leaves insufficient verifiable material to make an article, I have placed what I think remains to the Monopoly (game)#variants.

Hasbro own the trademark to Anti-Monopoly he could simply rename it to the legal antiopoly therefore the name of the game has a political opinion so the material has to be sourced carefully.
The image of the box lid does not pass wikipedia's image policy.
The RS are not directly about the game and the game only has passing direct reference all describing it in terms of monopoly.

Enough sources stating that something is not notable can make something notable on wikipedia without meaning that there is the information to warrant an article hence this is about POV. There is a case for an article about the lawsuit but this is already covered in other articles and most importantly should not be named Anti-Monopoly which is how NPOV applies to an AfD.Tetron76 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although a redirect to its creator, Roger Anspach, would be an acceptable second choice) It opened the door for the vast majority of Monopoly variants came from. Very notable for its history [4]and [5].When Parker Brothers lost its suit [6], the market was thrown open for countless locally sold board games that get played once and then put away. Mandsford 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep My opinion is that all reasons for deletion are inappropriate or insufficient

The whole existence of this article constitutes a point of view -- how? no explanation is given; I find this to be false.
The key information on this page is already covered -- not a proper Wikipedia deletion reason
The games are too similar -- I believe it's game rules that matter. For example, Go and Gomoku are two very different games in spite of both using the same board and pieces. I find the rules of Antimonopoly to be as different from Monopoly as those of Snakes and Ladders.
The comment about the opening sentence is a minor point which can be fixed with a small edit.
The image of the game board cover here is considered to be fair use, just like the monopoly logo on the monopoly page is considered to be fair use. If we delete this page because of the image, I believe we should also delete the Monopoly page for the same reason. Gabiteodoru (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops! Apologies for deleting your vote Mandsford -- didn't mean to. Thanks Arxiloxos for catching that and restoring it!Gabiteodoru (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While I am clearly going to lose this debate I would like to respond to your points.

The image on the box is a replica of a monopoly box which is still in copyright as a result the copyright doesn't belong to the game creator. Therefore, fair usage laws don't apply and the image policy is a legal position not consensus.
The game would not pass wikipedia's notability standards if it was not for the newspaper article which the comments on the WSJ page complain about there being no information on the game and the rules certainly don't add anything of note to the world of rules.
which set of rules? No game of note gets re-issued as a different game under the same name by the same designer.
The key information as in lawsuit already being covered means that there is no new information that can be added with citations from RS on the subject of this game. If there is not enough information for an article then there should not be an article and the advice given is that you should consider if there is a more appropriate place where the information can go.

Perhaps, it would be possible to salvage a page along the Lexulous (Scrabulous) lines although there are not really enough RS in this instance and I still feel the name of the page would be inaccurate.Tetron76 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No actual reason for deletion given. Sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion argument looks like a "shotgun" attempt hoping that something sticks. The only things that stick are content issues that are fixed by improving the article. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. Article in WallStreet Journal is not about the game? See WP:InUniverse, "The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.". Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as many other obscure board games which have gone unchallenged, eg. Rubik's Domino. Krollo (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (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.