Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pair Go

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pair Go[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Random sources, 3 of which are from the same source (the company that owns the trademark). I can't find any reliable sources for this either (what is the talk?). Also looks like there are quite a few SPAs in the history. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge with Go (game) Even though I also haven't found coverage on the game itself, it seems pretty popular within the Go communities. I have found mentions and tournaments on the pages of the Go Asossiations and Federations in Europe, the USA, UK, and Russia. There's also an article dedicated to the amateur championship - International Amateur Pair Go Championship which I believe should also be merged or deleted (as it fails notability guidelines). Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a game of go with two players on each side, who are not allowed to communicate between each other (or am I missing something). Already mentioned in Go variants, which seems to me to be enough. The content is largely promotional. Nigej (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage yet. Content is somewhat biased and promotional. In the very least the article needs a major re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janesalway (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination, fails in WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, fails WP:GNG and a large proportion of the article appears to be promotional. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no citations at all. Doesn't meet the guidelines. BlakesMa (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2021 (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.