Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrabble scoring examples

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble scoring examples[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article, and entirely based around a template which is soon to be deleted as a violation of Hasbro and Mattel's copyright on the board design. I'm also bundling in a very similar article, Example Scrabble tournament game. --Robth^Talk 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Yomangani ^talk 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio that fails WP:NOT as well.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yomangani.--Hús ö nd 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge with Scrabble. -AMK152 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Wikipedia is not an instruction manual --IslaySolomon 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, it's all been said. — riana_dzast a _{wreak havoc|damage report} 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. They are both great "articles" for Scrabble fans, but I cannot argue against any argument presented here. violet/riga (t) 09:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what everyone so far has said :) --Al e x ^(talk) 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Scrabble. People Powered 19:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Scrabble, and then shorten. These are good examples for scoring and professional play, but separate articles are not necessary. I'm pretty sure self-made templates could be made of the Scrabble board (like that of the chess board) too that don't violate the copyright. Phsource 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually; the point is that the game companies hold the copyright to the board design. A picture of people playing scrabble, used to illustrate the game's article, is close enough to fully free content as makes no difference, but a template containing nothing but their copyrighted design (which could be printed out, if one wished, and used as a scrabble board) is a no-no. (Template has now been deleted, by the way.) Also, out of curiosity, what would you suggest we merge? The scrabble article already has an explanation of the scoring and several examples, and I don't know that there's a need for more. --Robth^Talk 16:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not encyclopedic. --Ineffable3000 22:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Does not meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines - unencyclopedic information per WP:NOT. Williamborg (Bill) 00:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncyclopedic. Delete per WP:NOT -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 18 September 2006 (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.