Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Auction 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Auction Game[edit]

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

This was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. A discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 12 resulted in no consensus about whether this was correct, and it is therefore submitted to AfD. The reason for deletion is presumably lack of notability (WP:GNG), although this is a procedural nomination and I express no opinion. Sandstein 11:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked at this when it was at DRV. To be honest, the narrow scope of CSD "saved" this but the argument put forward there (that this is somehow notable because of some tenuous relationship to university students and is thus a product of academia) is really quite silly. I've got my WP:SNOW shoes on already. Stalwart111 12:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a moment, I got all excited when I found a QRS (Quasi Reliable Source), then I realized that it was talking about the Beer distribution game, from which this is apparently derived. Disclosure: I also participated in the DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I participated in DRV with the opinion that the A7 was incorrect, as this isn't web content). As near as I can tell from my attempt to source this, the deletion discussion about this subject is now arguably a more notable topic than the subject itself. I don't see this meeting WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Beer distribution game is a well-known game exercise illustrating problems in supply chain prediction, this game appears not to have yet gained notability. I could find no independent reliable sources. At best, WP:TOOSOON. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything necessary has already been said at the DRV. Bloody cold today, I expect SNOW. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources aren't enough to meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: source has been added to journal. Nevertheless quoting Karl Valentin: Everything has been said, but not by everybody. Add. info: not a students project, but a professors + research topic: me (author) Bmwtroll (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (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.