Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haggis (card 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.  Jujutacular  talk 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Haggis (card game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

New board game with no evidence of notability. Tags added several days ago indicating need for RS references, but none have been forthcoming, despite numerous attempts by original author. Strongly suspect that original author is involved in the promotion of this game. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello, I'm the original creator and main contributor to this article thus far.


 * Full disclosure: I have played the game's creator online at boardgamearena.com. He asked me and several other top-ranked players on the site for AI suggestions to aide developers of an upcoming Haggis iOS app. My planned assistance in the project is unpaid and voluntary, in thanks for his permitting Haggis to be playable for free at BGA. Gratitude also prompted me to start the Wikipedia article. This "promotion" of the game was completely voluntary, and my main motivation was to give back to the Wikipedia community which has been of so much help to me, and to possibly introduce a few people to a new, fun game.


 * I feel the Haggis article is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, it is a new game from an indie publisher, but it is in its 2nd printing, and several gaming publications have given it mention. I apologize if the sources I provided were considered "unreliable". Sadly, Haggis has not yet been the subject of a major research paper, or profiled in a NYTimes article--it's a game--it's talked about in gaming magazines and on gaming websites. The publications where it's mentioned may have tiny print runs, but I would argue that they are "experts" in their small field. Haggis need not be mentioned in academic texts or national news media to be considered of sufficient notability to the gaming community.


 * Sean Ross, the game's creator, is active on gaming websites answering questions about Haggis and has given several interviews regarding it, including on BoardGameGeek, which is known as "a resource without peer for board and card gamers, the recognized authority of this online community." I understand how a link to Sean Ross answering questions in the BGG forums may be considered an inadequate source, I'm sorry. However, among the sources Ebikeguy rejected as unreliable were a PDF of the official Haggis rules booklet (same text as released in the physical game), an issue of Meeple Syrup, the newsletter for Game Artisans of Canada (and the definitive source for the naming history of Haggis according to Sean Ross). Some sources I had not attempted to cite due to language barriers were a mention in Spielbox, a German board gaming magazine, and coverage in a German podcast, at http://www.thespiel.net/?q=node/664. Additionally, a review appeared in an article on GamesFanatic.pl, a popular Polish gaming site, written by staff writer Jacek Nowak.


 * My apologies if I haven't kept entirely up-to-date with Wikipedia editorial policy--it's been a few years since I've been active. However, after reviewing the standards for notability, I still feel this article is deserving of inclusion. --Everlong (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I have some additional information about those sources. The Google Translate result for the GamesFanatic article is here and is understandable despite translation errors. A friend was able to acquire a scan of the Haggis article from Spielbox Magazine's English edition. Uploaded here with OCR of the text below (680 words). Also, thespiel.net podcasts are in English, not German. Their coverage of Haggis begins at 34m10s in the mp3, and runs for 2m10s. For your convenience, I've made an ogg clip containing just the Haggis coverage, as well as a transcript (420 words).


 * Besides giving an overview of the rules and remarking on Haggis's similarity to Tichu, all the sources praise Haggis for being the first game to successfully create a fun, climbing, trick-taking game for two to three players (most previous games required 4 players exactly, or more). They are also in agreement that the evenly distributed, face card "bombs" are a notable innovation for the genre, helping even out hand strength enough to make 2-person play workable, and enhancing the strategic element of the game. --Everlong (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a frequent user of wikipedia and an infrequent editor (probably only a half dozen edits total). I'm not 100% sure of the rules for what is deserving of inclusion, but I do second the author's position that this game has gotten a lot of buzz in the board and card gaming community since it was released. I've seen not just formal reviews of it but lots of chatter among my board gaming friends because this game has some interesting characteristics that set it apart from other games of its type (mostly these changes make the game enjoyable with 2 or 3 players instead of needing 4). I have nothing to do with the game other than being an owner who enjoys playing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.48.153 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep It's BGG rating would lend me to suspect this game is notable. I'm unsure if the Polish source is reliable, but if it is and if the Spielbox short review (which is a RS for certain) is at least a 100-150 words with some critical commentary we are probably in good shape.  Additional print magazines or on-line sources with editorial oversight (generally something professional run by someone) which have published reviews would be really helpful.  Hobit (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It appears to have been genuinely reviewed in spielbox, but this is marginal at best. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (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.