Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triominoes


 * 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 redirect to Pressman Toy Corporation. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 04:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Triominoes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable variation on dominos. I can't find any WP:RS. There's listings in places like ebay and specialty outlets of sets for sale, but nothing from independent sources that talk about the game in depth. I did find some reasonable sources about the more generic concept (ex: project euler) but that's not this game. Also nominating Quad-Ominos, another game from the same manufacturer, with similar lack of sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's hard to believe this isn't more widely covered. I get a huge number of ghits when searching for "tri-ominoes". Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saying that there's a huge number of ghits doesn't mean anything. Could you provide a few (2 or 3) specific examples which meet the requirements of WP:RS and which demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG?
 * Redirect to Pressman_Toy_Corporation, where it is mentioned. I found short descriptions of this product at places like boardgamegeek, but nothing that is indpendent and in depth. That this is a game manufactured by Pressman is verifiable and the number of GHits above shows this is a plausible search term. Hence a redirect to the manufacturer is reasonable and warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirecting both of these, as suggested above, is a good solution. In fact, a better idea than outright deletion.  Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2017 (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.