Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Cribbage


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. A discussion about a future Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Kings Cribbage

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage as pointed out on the talk page in 2011; from my research that has not changed in 13 years. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Products. Skynxnex (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * del no in dependent sources. - Altenmann >talk 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * KEEP I have added reviews and sources that should indicate notability.Guinness323 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * keep sources aren't great, but seem above WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the various proposals and analysis of sourcing would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Scrabble variants. Fails GNG and NPRODUCT. The sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability (the SaskToday article was authored by "The Meeple Guild", which does not seem particularly reliable) and I could not find additional significant coverage. Merging seems to be the best alternative to deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per Voorts (I have added partial-merged section at Scrabble_variants). WP:NOTHOWTO would expunge much of the article (particularly since winningmoves is a online shop) as qualitative coverage seems slight. SaskToday review should be considered contributing towards SIGCOV from an RS despite the pseudonym (they have ~200 reviews and ST has an editorial policy etc), but the Bukszpan review appears to be relatively minor coverage within a book on games. Note that it appears that the game was released as Cross Crib in 1997, and was renamed King's Cribbage in 2001 but that'd require an RS to avoid OR. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cross Crib appears to be a different game, created in 1996. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Source assessment:

Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to hear some comment about the source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only other sources I have found via searches on Google or Newspapers.com are trivial mentions (for example, the last source I added to the chart above). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: This book has a detailed entry for the game, a full 8-sentence paragraph. I can't spot any page numbers, but this search link should land at the result. Left guide (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing that source. Now we have two sources that provide SIGCOV, but I don't think that one review and a seven paragraph description of how the game works are enough to write an article, so my !vote is still to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (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.