Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Court the King


 * 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. Even discounting BOZ as usual, there ian't a clear enough consensus to delete.  Sandstein  22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

To Court the King

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES with no third-party coverage. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  21:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete: There is a Games Magazine article in the references, which I can't verify but will assume to be substantial. There is also this review, but the site is heavy on Amazon affiliate links, the review consists mostly of a description of gameplay, and the site has only reviewed about 10 games total with no negative reviews. WP:NGAMES is an essay pertaining to video game notability, so I'm applying WP:GNG. If anybody comes up with a second significant source, I'd easily change my vote. Merging to Rio Grande Games isn't appropriate since that article only lists notable games released by the company (I'm assuming they release so many that including them all is not reasonable). Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — WP:NGAMES category struck.  sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added a review from an independent source, as well as a list of nominations the game received for a number of awards in 2006 and 2007. I believe this suggests notability.Guinness323 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guinness323 and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Inadequate rationale from BOZ. The added review and award nominations are really a stretch. "Games of Tradition" is a WordPress blog formed in 2016 with less than 20 reviews that more resemble advertisements with their heavy usage of Amazon links and mainly positive commentary, plus a noteworthy gaming site would have its own distinctive design rather than lazily ripping off the Game of Thrones logo. BoardGameGeek is a site devoted to board games, as its name indicates, so some coverage of TCTK is expected, and being one of fifteen total games nominated (and not won) in each of its niche categories for a site-created award is not notable. Aside from the lone Games magazine review, there is no independent third-party coverage, which is the reason why its creator's article was deleted. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  06:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the award nominations and Games of Tradition review are not enough on their own, for reasons outlined by Beemer69. I'm still curious about the cited Games Magazine article, but even if it meets WP:SIGCOV, we still need multiple instances of significant coverage. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added an award nomination for the annual Österreichischer Spielepreis (Austrian Game Prize) in the "Spiele Hit mit Freunden" category (Game Hit with Friends). "Österreichischer Spielepreis" is a set of annual awards chosen by the independent Wiener Spiele Akademie (Vienna Games Museum). I question the argument that to be nominated for several different awards and not win must indicate non-notability. Thousands of games are produced every year; each of these awards nominates only 5–10 in each category. Merely to be nominated indicates a game that has made its mark on the industry.Guinness323 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but a combined search of the award name (in both English and German) and the game title produced nothing and there's no mention of these nominations outside of Board Game Geek, thus making them hard to verify. The prizes nor the museum mentioned above have Wikipedia articles, and there was virtually nothing to go with in the German wiki either. The GoT review is not an independent source. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there's nothing that suggests this title passes WP:GNG. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  03:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can find info about Österreichischer Spielepreis on the German Wikipedia at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osterreichischer_Spielepreis. Likewise Österreichisches Spiele Museum at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osterreichisches_Spiele_Museum. Although it doesn't help this article, there is a complete list of the 2019 winners at http://www.spielepreis.at/wordpress/ (all of the aforementioned are in German.) Guinness323 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Comment Like other editors, I was having trouble finding sources about this game because I assumed it was developed by Rio Grande Games and translated to German by Amigo Spiele. Then I stumbled upon the fact that it was the other way around: this game was developed by Amigo Spiele under a completely different title, Um Krone und Kragen (Around Crown and Collar), and it was Rio Grande that translated it to English and gave it a completely different title. From there I was able to discover a host of independent reviews and sources (Germany and Austria take games a lot more seriously than North America). I submit that this new information confirms this game's notability. Guinness323 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2020 (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.