Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia (board game)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (board game)

[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)

No indication of notability with no refs in this article, I could not find any more reliable ones either except this one, which perhaps is an RS but I am unsure. The article claims that it won a minor Games Magazine award, which was backed by BGG, but isn't significant coverage to be considered notable, and is not as influential as the Spiel des Jahres awards. VickKiang (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unsourced. Could arguably be WP:PRODed, but I guess the Games Magazine award is worth discussing. For which I concur it doesn't seem very major. My rule of thumb is that if an award isn't notable on its own (as evidenced by having its own article), it probably does not confer notability.Btw, is the award from the Games Magazine? The redirect goes there but the article doesn't say it was ever called that (just Games, not Games Magazine). PS. I did a bit more digging, and yes, it is related. But it's unclear how significant these awards were. I never heard of them, but maybe they were important "before my time"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was actually a popular game in Europe back in the mid-00s, and there are plenty of Eurogame sites with reviews. It also received a major industry award and was nominated for two others. I've fleshed out the article, added some sources and reviews (some of them in Dutch, German and Finnish, sorry) as well as an image of the box cover. Should be good to go. Guinness323 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: @Piotrus: Thanks for this quick reply and cleanup, but I am unsure if the refs count GNG. Ref 2 is reliable but is a passing, not significant, mention. Unfortunately, I don’t speak German, but Google translated the third ref, it seems to be an unreliable, dated, self published ref (though if there are any reliable refs covering this site could you ping me). Similarly, ref 5 is to me clearly a self published ref- is there any editorial policies? On its about section, it says that it’s the second oldest gaming site, but is there evidence that it is an RS? Ref 6 is a BGG like user generated database (with a rating of 4/10 and 6/10 but no review)? It definitely doesn’t count GNG. For ref 7, I will probably need to have a further look, it has an editorial team, so could others comment on this ref's reliability? The other three refs, 8, 9, and 10, are nominations for minor awards that are probably not notable, unlike the SdJ or even the Golden Geek, I don't think that the Games Magazine award is a major one enough to count towards GNG. Ref 4 is the ref that I think is probably reliable enough to pass GNG.

So right now, I am leaning towards weak delete or neutral (ref 4 and 7 are probably RS, and might be counting towards GNG, though the latter has a higher standard), but if editors can show the two refs are definitely RS counting towards GNG, that would be great, and I might change my vote to weak keep; thanks again for participating in this AfD and helping to cleanup! VickKiang (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this board game was and may still be a popular one, article has plenty of good sources too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Kazanstyle (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2022 (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.