Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play money


 * 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.

Play money
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ p  b  p  20:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Recently User:VickKiang wrote what IMHO amounts to the AfD rationale for this: "Google Books sourcing are very limited and GS refs are mainly about the concept of play money in economics and marketing, but this article is entirely about the tabletop gaming concept, which very few RS discuss in-depth, so I am unconvinced this is a significant game concept." I agree (and double checked with my own WP:BEFORE), and I'll just clarify that IMHO this is not a notable concept. I suggest redirecting this to Glossary of board games. On a side note, there are many board game-related concepts that are likely notable and need to be created (meeple, Game piece (board game), worker placement, game board...). But play money is just one of many types of resources used in games (resources (board games) could be notable too, all we have right now is the bit under Game_mechanics). But play money outside looking nice and being memorable from Monopoly and Game of life is unlikely to be notable separately from other similar type of resources used in games (ex. wood or sheep in Catan, etc.). PS. We also have an article on Monopoly money which probably should be merged with Monopoly (game). IF this is kept, then those two likely need merging. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Economics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me guess: Over many years, the article writers never found professor Goggin's, which goes into things like why play money is qualitatively different from gaming chips, and how Monopoly money is different from virtual currency in MMORPGs.  tells us an interesting thing about board game manufacturers who refused to make games that had play money, too.  Is that in there?  Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The first potentially looks quite useful. Do you have access to it? Could you add something to the article to indicate the topic is notable? I'd be happy to withdraw this nom but right now I cannot access that book (Goggin 2009). The second is in IA and the single sentence there that mentions play money is not good enough for WP:SIGCOV - it is quite a trivial mention, I fear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a quick start. The rest is up to someone else.  Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Uncle G Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The concept is common enough and sourceable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. WP:BEFORE didn't seem to be followed by the nominator  p  b  p  16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources found (and added) by Uncle G put us well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing. Thank you Uncle G for finding the sources that I missed in my BEFORE and improving the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources found (and added) by Uncle G put us well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing. Thank you Uncle G for finding the sources that I missed in my BEFORE and improving the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My argument quoted above was against this being listed a vital article- the sourcing on popularity and impact seems insufficient for a level 5 vital article, It was not about notability, which I have no opinion upon, and I won’t object if this is closed as keep.  VickKiang   (talk)  07:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close per above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 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.