Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watch It Played


 * 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. The SandDoctor Talk 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Watch It Played

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Oh my. 338 references. Out of which, we get one broken link, one link to crowdfunding platform (indiegogo), a link to the program's homepage, and 335 links to individual youtube episodes of this videocast (including one link transcluded at BGG). That... has to be some sort of record of that many bad references. Anyway, this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA (and my BEFORE found nothing to add here outside a link to the twitter account which the creator somehow forgot to add, it would make a fitting proverbial cherry on top...), but I am listing it here instead of PRODing so my fellow editors can gaze at this mess. And maybe someone knows a wikia this can be transwikied too, since it is an impressive piece of, errr, fancruft? PS. A quick check shows that the article has been created and maintained by at least two WP:SPAs... sigh. This seems like a classic case of the YouTube channel owner confusing Wikipedia with a place to host a website for the show... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Looks like I flagged this a couple of years ago, and it still doesn't seem to meet the basic WP:GNG criteria of secondary press coverage. I can't find any interviews with Smith about his channel, and although news articles occasionally mentions the channel as an authority on boardgames, they never provide enough detail to meet GNG, that I can see. The nominator's jokily insulting tone is quite embarrassing, here, though: most Wikipedia editors are not here to laugh at bad articles, they're here to fix them up where possible and move to delete them when not. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * IAR keep. I hate things like this and feel it's a place where our inclusion rules fall apart.  There are tons and tons of interviews with the author/creator about his work (e.g., ).  References to Watch it Played in mainstream media (e.g. NBC, Today) and in less-mainstream media (e.g. Geekdad).  None of that really meets WP:N in the way that some people read it (I would count the interviews toward notability, but I don't think that has consensus).  But this clearly is something we can source, verify, and is notable in the English sense of the word.  So IAR keep.  Hobit (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , The problem here is that I, as a board game hobbyist, know that those channels are 'reasonably well known' to the hobbyists, but that knowledge is not enough, per GNG, NORG, NMEDIA, etc. If the 'experts' know something is notable, but there is no coverage in other sources, we need... something else. But for scholarly journals, for example, we accept being indexed in major citation indices as a proof of notability. (I forget if the circulation number is an indicator of newspaper/magazine notability...). Anyway. The channel has 219k subscribers. Maybe we could add a rule on YouTube subscriber number that makes a channel notable to the NMEDIA, then we won't have to invoke IAR. Do note that The Dice Tower, which has 269k subscribers, was closed a while ago as 'merge' per Articles for deletion/The Dice Tower (2nd nomination) (and why not, I just started a a discussion on this here). All that said, IAR is fine, but right now this article does seem to fail our guidelines, and I can't even think of a soft delete redirect target to WP:PRESERVE this... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't really disagree with much of anything you said. I just think A) we have enough to write a decent article and B) this seems like the kind of thing we should keep.  But I agree WP:N isn't easily met (again, the interviews maybe...).  This, IMO, is what IAR is here for.  I don't expect the argument to carry the day unless it gets a strong numeric agreement... Hobit (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search for "Watch It Played" "card game" reviews reliable sources consider this a reliable source, the guy seen as an expert in this, they quoting his opinions on games of this type. https://www.today.com/shop/11-best-games-play-zoom-t179862  D r e a m Focus  03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yeah but we really need to do better than WP:GOOGLEHITS policy-wise. As a board game hobbist, I concur that this is a relatively well-known channel. As a Wikipedian, I still don't see what makes this channel notable per our policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of WP:CREATIVE Creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.  D r e a m Focus  19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Technically, that applies to people, not programs... and one either case, requires reliable sources to say so. Trusting the opinion of an editor or two is tricky. I *think* I know a lot about board games, and I *think* that this program has some decent recognition in that community, but am I really right? I don't trust myself too much to make me overrule our policies here. And we haven't found so much as a single RS that calls this program significant, even in a passing sentence, did we? :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We do have a number of mainstream sources that go to him as an expert in the context of his program. So it's a bit more than one or more of us thinking so. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Which mainstream source explicitly labels him an expert? And anyway, this could be an argument for notability of him as a person, but not the show. This is why The Dice Tower, an even more famous board gaming videocast, was redirected to the biography of its main host. Even though, IMHO, I think the show has more of a name recognition than its host. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The two links I provided don't call him an expert, but they are quoting and consulting him. Seems unlikely they'd pick someone they don't consider expert in the area. There are a few other similar stories. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, regretfully. The sources given do not appear to constitute significant coverage, nor could I find any that did meet this standard. The arguments above regarding Google hits and views are not persuasive in my opinion. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 21:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maineartists (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Barely found anything about the webseries. Article looks like WP:FANCRUFT, it should be given a WP:TNT with hundreds of YouTube sources. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Like the nom, I am also a board game hobbyist and Watch is Played, in my opinion, is notable in board gaming scene. Regretfully, the article will not pass WP:GNG, no matter how much board gaming community knew about this channel. Google hits and views are not good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:POPULARITY or WP:FAME. SunDawn (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (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.