Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Ghost


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Green Ghost

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, probably non-notable. Much of the text is trivia or promotional   p  b  p  20:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many books mentioning the game,,(her rarest game is a spooky, glow in the dark concotion from the 60's),, also The New Yorker got a mention, and it has a review at boardgamegeek (wich has a somewhat of a peer review process). Although the online avaiable sources are weak, this means it's likely that in 1965 there should be some more lengthy coverage to be found in the newspaper archives. This should be enough to keep a short stub, or at least to merge it into Ideal Toy Company or Marx toys. Diego (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. There will likely be a few more days before this discussion closes. To the user Diego: perhaps you should take what you feel are reliable sources, add them to the article and then make a note here when you're finished. It might help the rest of us to provide more cogent input. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm noting that the game itself has less online coverage than I expected (with Cincinnati Magazine being about a private collection of board games), but the sources would make it easier to write about company Transogram itself (with articles like this and this). I suggest moving the article to Transogram to preserve the references and refocus the topic to cover the company. Diego (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I could see the company itself technically becoming the new home for the given sources, especially if they developed other games as well. It needs attention, of course, from somebody who really likes games. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep while obviously not an eternal classic toy like a Slinky, there seems to be a reasonable amount of coverage (it's also reasonable to assume there may be sources from the 60s not easily available online). The fact that it was brought back after 30 years indicates a certain measure of enduring notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm with Starblind (Andrew) above - I think it probably just gets there and I can only imagine there are more offline sources to be found. Article needs a good clean-up though! Stalwart 111  11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a bad article but no cause for deletion. Agree it is a close one and that it needs attention. Plenty of sources available for anyone who wants to do it justice. Silverwood (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Had a crack at a quick clean-up but it still needs more work. Stalwart 111  22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You guilted me into having a crack too. Linked to online sources where suitable but nothing especially substantial. I left the clunky section on game rules for someone else (I have never seen or played the game). There is one good offline source in the article and more would help. Silverwood (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Is looking much better than when it was nom'd but could do with some more work. Stalwart 111  23:23, 25 April 2013 (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.