Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game of Diplomacy


 * 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. Tone 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Game of Diplomacy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book about notable game I've played for almost four decades. The main sources are publications dedicated to the game, which don't constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Fails WP:BOOK. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nom based on looking at article and lack of sources/apparent non-notability. Article itself says the book isn't particularly well-regarded. B.Rossow talk contr 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * response - the article says it is well-regarded within the narrow pool of those at whom it is aimed, although they point out its flaws. But it fails our tests for general notability. After all, a very poorly-regarded work can still be notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, passes WP:Notability_(books) New seeker (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor book that fails Notability (books). No significant coverage in independent sources. Location (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm a fan of the game, but I proposed informally last year that the book didn't meet notability criteria. Since then no one has produced any reliable independent sources. This book deserves a note and a link to the online text in the main Diplomacy article, but not an article of its own. -- Meyer (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * weak delete There is one book review in a specialized publication. If there were another review in a less specialized publication (say a general game site) that was reliable I'd move to keep.  There is a mention here Hobit (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (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.