Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strip Monopoly (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strip Monopoly
Previous nomination here which resulted in was "no consensus" for deletion. Four months later the article still lacks cited sources, and existence of reliable sources appears unlikely. Although "strip monopoly" scores pretty well on Google (11,800 hits), none of them appear to qualify as a reliable source for anything official. Rather, Monopoly is a popular game and some people will naturally start inventing "strip" versions of it and post their own private rules on the internet. (Compare this to strip poker which is more widespread and which had a world championship(!) arranged in London.) Note that a number of those who argued for the article's inclusion in some form last time did so provided that sources were provided. The article remains original research. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I must admit the idea of playing it this way had never occurred to me before. There are some comments in the previous AfD listing suggesting a merge of a sentence or two into the main article, but without anything which works as a reliable source I don't see that as the best of policies. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My first thought was a proposal to merge this with Strip Poker to create a "Strip versions of other games" article, but Strip Poker appears to be (as mentioned) a more widespread...er... sport(?), so it's probably not appropriate to do that. Judging by the amount of text in this article (so many rules, just get naked!) i'm hesitant to propose deletion. Maybe the best course would be to Merge as a footnote to Monopoly. I notice that other versions of Monopoly have their own pages as well, but they appear to be more 'official'. I don't think the 'strip' aspect alters the original game enough to warrant it's own entry - they appear to have virtually identical rules, albeit with the inclusion of the obvious. Onebravemonkey 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Boardgamegeek.com is kind of authorative, isn't it? I would use their material as a source, but still, like Onebravemonkey, I don't see the need for an entire article. Using the source to get a footnote in monopoly and redirect should be enough. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the reasons here. (I'm still lobbying for strip Hungry Hungry Hippos though). --IslaySolomon 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons stated. It may be worth a footnote in Monopoly - it was in Friday the 13th, which may make it a tiny bit more notable than other strip variants. Kubigula 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as a footnote, per above. Redirect to the footnote. - CNichols 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as a footnote, per above. I say, chaps, most of the article is just a retelling of the Monopoly rules. --Gray Porpoise 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete instruction manual --The Photon 04:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and potentially non-notability. —   08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per precedent at Articles for deletion/Strip chess. Strip chess is much more common than strip Monopoly in my book, and neither one deserves an article. -- NORTH talk 10:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (or at least send it to Wikibooks or some Wikia-boardgame site, or something else.) --JohnDBuell 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, falls under original research. Yamaguchi先生 23:01, 18 September 2006 (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.