Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games on Tap Board Game Cafe


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The opinions here are generally based in policy, and there is clearly good-faith disagreement over whether the provided sources constitute SIGCOV. However, we would not generally consider a college newspaper a reliable enough source to count toward GNG, and absent other reasons to down-weight opinions, the numerical tilt is enough to constitute consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Games on Tap Board Game Cafe

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Case of WP:TOOSOON. I could not find a single source that covers the article subject in depth. Current links are either promo-puff pieces or primary sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Games,  and Business. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads as an advertisement written by a SPA. Reywas92Talk 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * keep is clearly a reliable independent source focused on this store. It is in a college paper, but seems fine. , ,  also all seem to be reliable, independent, and have non-trivial coverage.  Hobit (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as PROMO. I don't think the above sources are useful for notability, they're all local sources discussing the "thing", vaguely human interest/promo pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are local sources not allowed in this context? I don't see anything about that in the GNG. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AUD. Local reviews for a local audience for generic local businesses are of limited use for notability. Reywas92Talk 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * CBC News is national, not provincial or local! Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. Meets WP:NORG. Local coverage for a local place is fine. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Board game café, which is mostly an inline list of board game cafes like this. A run-of-the-mill local business. And content like Games on Tap hosts a General Knowledge Trivia Night every Monday. is excessively promotional. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The question at hand is if this meets our inclusion guidelines. Run-of-the-mill isn't relevant to those as far as I'm aware.   Hobit (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - While local sources on local places are fine for verifiability, its highly debatable on whether they, by themselves, would be sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. But, I'd say that's besides the point in this case, because the sources would not be sufficient for passing the WP:GNG regardless. The one article from the college paper that is actually entirely about the establishment is, as stated by the nom, a promotional puff piece where the majority of the article is just quotes from the owner themselves talking about it in a promotional manner. The rest of the linked sources are generally just shorter versions of the same - either promotional pieces consisting of quotes from the owners, or general "this place will be opening soon" mentions that would not count as significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and borderline spam. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Rorshacma, sources are mostly promotional content. Alan Islas (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's at least 3 good GNG references in there - one from an national outlet (CBC). The other two are local, but extensive - The Cord might be a bit too local, but the Waterloo Region article is good. Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I added another reference - at the danger of refbombing; from a Torstar paper. That covers 3 of the main Canada media corporations; Torstar, Postmedia, and CBC. From 2014 to 2018. Nfitz (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting the GNG. I agree the references are, in the main, local coverage, and it feels like a routine business. However, we have to follow the sourcing. Whatever the reason, the business has been written about repeatedly over the years by independent sources. There is enough the sourcing to correct the promotion spin, which does make this feel like a puff piece. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am totally unsatisfied that the coverage located by editors constitutes anything significant. The coverage provided is not sufficient as it does not address the topic directly and in detail. Short bursts of coverage which are really about board game cafes rather than this business specifically are not sufficient in my view. The references that do go into some detail are more routine announcements than anything meeting WP:SIGCOV. This is hardly the most egregious lack of coverage for an article, that's for sure. However it is at best a borderline keep. On balance I think deletion is appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think characterizing independent news sources as "announcements" is problematic. Can you be more specific about what sources you are categorizing this is way? Hobit (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for editing the article - otherwise we are violating Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Just doesn't seem like there's enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:18, 2 May 2023 (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.