Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean (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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Caribbean (board game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete for lack of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Other than being indexed at at BoardGameGeek it seems to have no coverage in independent reliable sources. The game won no awards. On 16 May 2014 I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games my intention to put this article up for deletion and asked Is there any reason Caribbean (board game) should not be deleted? There was no response. --Bejnar (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * keep In general, if you find a link at BBG, it's worth checking to see if they link to reviews. I'm seeing about 20 reviews.  None are in English and I can't easily judge how many of these are SPS and how many aren't, but looking at them quickly, a number look to be reliable.  See BGG Caribbean links].,  and many more.  Hobit (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't count 20, I count a max of 7, all niche market, and the first one you cite isn't a review, its a blurb followed by forum comments. [BoardGameGeek]] lists it with Board Game Rank: 1736 and Family Game Rank: 513. Are you saying that there are 1,736 board games that are notable? The second review that you cite is a review that says no new groundbreaking game ideas. What is the game's claim to notability? --Bejnar (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, You've raised a number of points, let me hit them one at a time:
 * I think you may have missed the fact there are 3 pages of links, not just one.
 * As far as the link goes--you are correct, I grabbed the wrong one somehow. There are however quite a few others  and  for example.
 * The ranking of the game at BBG has exactly zero to do with notability on Wikipedia. Candyland is ranked at around 5000 for example. And not because kids games don't get good reviews, but because it's a horrible (if well-known) game.  But it's clearly notable.  And yes, there are probably 1000s of notable boardgames.  And tens of thousands of not notable ones.  It's a $1 billion dollar market (or so) in the US.  It has been huge in Europe (mostly Germany) for decades and the US has been catching up.
 * The claim to notability is coverage--meeting WP:N. The same as everything else here. On Wikipedia, notability is a Term of art which means coverage existed, not that the topic is innovative in some way.  Hobit (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So what I hear saying is that there is no reason for this game to be in the Wikipedia, but that it does meet the notability requirements for inclusion.  Is that a fair statement?  Since notability is a term of art, you are not going to claim that meeting the coverage requirements is a reason, are you? --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is probably a bit too meta of a question for an AfD. I mean, what reason would you say justifies any Wikipedia article? I generally go with "a well sourable (and ideally sourced) article that people might find useful".  I think this is well above that bar.  I'd personally prefer we cover everything we can source and make readable by the average person.  And while your opinion or mine isn't hugely relevant (Wikipedia has reasonably clear inclusion guidelines that we are all supposed to follow), I am curious what bar you think is appropriate and how articles you edit pass that bar but this does not. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. quoting WP:NOT If an article has no reason there is no context. I have provided examples of reasons on Hobit's talk page as Hobit requested. --Bejnar (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Hobit, with instructions to add the reviews and references. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Agree with Bejnar's comments above. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all, it's worth noting the game is called Karibik, Caribic, or Caribbean, and is published by multiple game publishers, depending on country. I looked through the first couple pages of gsearches for each and found a whole lot of reviews and such (of varying quality). The first good one I found was this longer piece on the game with interviews/photos of the designers. Others are below (in several languages). Some aren't great, but I'm seeing enough here just based on a few minutes of searching to justify keeping it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Spielmonster.de, gute-spiele-info.de, fairspielt.de, goblins.net, spellenclub13.be, gamepack.nl, anderspel.nl, spieleteufel.de, hall9000.de, michas-spielmitmir.de, pevans.co.uk, superfred.de, spieletest.at, spielfritte.de, thegamesjournal.com, rpg.net. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Everyone seems to agree that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, and that the article is no unsalvagable mess, so why are we still here? &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 00:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is still here because no one has articulated a reason it should be in the Wikipedia. What does it add? The question is not whether it meets WP:GNG, the question is what claim does it have to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand what you mean. WP:GNG is our sole inclusion criterion for topics here (barring perhaps some exceptional WP:BLP situations, I guess). An article topic doesn't have to meet any other criteria to be included. Since it's now been established that this article meets WP:GNG, this AfD should be closed and we can discuss any further issues with the article on its proper talk page. &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 12:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're looking for subjective claims to notability? Otherwise, the GNG is the "general notability guideline," our consensus-driven quasi-objective measure of importance (i.e. notability) that you said this fails in your nomination. Was that inaccurate or is it now clear that it passes but so what? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline threshold has been met, now provide a reason, any reasonable reason why this article belongs in an encyclopedia, otherwise it breaches the Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not, specifically 2.10 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Policy trumps guidelines.  Also, in this case, Wikipedia is not a directory of board games. How does having this article contribute? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You nominated an article for deletion on the basis of failing GNG. Now you're saying passing the GNG doesn't matter and do seem to want someone to provide some subjective reasons. So ok: it's a popular game, it's original, lots of people play it, it's translated into multiple languages and published by several significant board game publishers, and so on and so forth. But all of that has already been established by way of satisfying GNG. The notability criteria exist as an extension of the policies, derived by consensus over time such that something that passes GNG is specifically not "indiscriminate." The very act of determining notable from not notable is an act of discrimination, after all. So, no, your own interpretation of policy does not "trump" guidelines. Are there occasional exceptions? Of course! Are there sometimes topics that are notable but should be part of another article rather than forked? Yes! But this is not one of those, and you're not providing any arguments of the sort. You're just saying "ok now that you've shown it passes GNG, now show me more." --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was incorrect about WP:GNG, because the several reviews I looked at were not substantive, and no claim to notability was made in the article. There still is no such claim in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:GNG per sources found by Hobit. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But it does not meet policy, see above. As is says at WP:ATA, you need to say why the article has value; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. --Bejnar (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue at stake is the article's notability, and that's what gives it value. There is absolutely no requirement where one has to state why the article has value beyond that - what you linked to is an essay that simply states that if you wish to keep an article based on its value, you need to specify why it's valuable. In this case, the subject has value because it is notable. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 06:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what you are missing is significant coverage, since none of the reviews mention anything significant about this game. So far no one has found anything significant about this game. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from WP:N to define the "significant coverage" part of the GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Nowhere there does it say "includes assertions of importance to such a degree that Bejnar's standards are sufficiently satisfied." If there's consensus it passes the GNG, by definition that means the subject is significant enough to have a presence on Wikipedia. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  21:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not "Bejnar's standards" it is Wikipedia policy. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No significance, no context, no article. --Bejnar (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - enough coverage is sources to prove notability, both under alternative names and in foreign-language sources. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 06:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.