Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color or Country (second nomination)

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 of the debate was no consensus - default to keep Proto||type 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color or Country[edit]

There's only one source which doesn't cover half the content in this article, and googling (e.g. [1]) seems to imply that this isn't notable. Please prove me wrong :) ZoFreX 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, while I admit that I do not have a source asserting notability other than myself, I do know that this game has at least as significant recognition as Mornington Crescent, which has an article. —Cuivi é nen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 00:07 (UTC)
Keep - this is real. For great justice. 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a second nomination. A link should have been provided to the first nomination, which was long and complex (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color or Country). Oh, and weak keep. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like The Game (game), this article has verifiability issues. The previous AFD argued primarily the notability of Color or Country and its appropriateness as a game, not as an article. (This current AFD seems to be headed that way too). I'm not inclined to delete an article based on its notability; I do not think, however, that we should allow unsourced articles to continue living in article space--especially if they do not seem sourceable. As the article stands, the only thing that has been given a source is the rules, a very small portion of the article. I've looked for more information than that, and been generally unsuccessful. Regardless of my opinion of the game itself, the article is unlikely to ever meet the criteria set forth in WP:V and WP:NOR —Seqsea (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually think the article (well, the top section, anyway) is adequately sourced. The last paragraph is false, by the way: this game was not introduced for the first time at Mathcamp 2002, I have firsthand knowledge.. and the business about "Functor or category" is a mathcamp in-joke. This game is simply not notable enough... it's basically a case of WP:NFT. Mangojuice 14:41, 8 April 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.