Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War IV: One World, One 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

World War IV: One World, One King

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to be a notable game.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep Looks like an interesting board game that is actually being manufactured and sold, but it does not look like there are really sources to meet the general notability guidelines. I am not !voting delete because I'm concerned that new board games may be unfairly impacted by the guidelines. Does the press really pay attention to boardgames at all? And if not, do we run the risk of ignoring potentially important board games? Monty  845  19:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble, all the notable board games have sources. I don't think that there's an institutionalized problem here.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All those board games came out at a different time, when there was more focus on boardgames. Can a new board game get that level of coverage? Regardless I'm changing to keep on the basis of J1776's comment below. Monty  845  16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate game that should have its own page because it introduces a new game mechanic to the standard world domination board game (defeating an opponent by assassinating his leader), is notable in that it has been reviewed and acknowledged as such by the leading indicators of the industry (boardgamegeek.com, thedicetower.com and Game Trade Magazine (#116)) and the games cover art has garnered its creator several awards (AIW Rosslyn Show 09, 3D Artist Award 09, IC Award 2010) according to the artists website: http://www.kmistudio.com/blog/index.php/kmistudio/bio/category/bio/ J1776 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that might be true, but none of those sources are in the article, and I couldn't find any of those sources during my own search. Put them into the article, I'm not an unreasonable person, if you prove that there's reliable third party coverage, there's no reason for me to keep this AfD open, but you've got to give me something to work with you on.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, as big of a game fan as I am,I 'm not seeing RSes of any type. I tend to use boardgamegeek.com as a measure of if a game is likely notable and the very low number of rankings of the game lead me to believe it's almost certainly not notable in any sense of the word. There exists plenty of magazines and awards for boardgames, this lacks coverage and awards.  Looks like a good game though... Hobit (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If those awards have been given and are themselves meaningful in some sense I'd be willing to considering removing my delete !vote. A game could be notable for its art, it just seems unlikely here. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am prepared to accept a game if it genuinely introduces a new mechanism to a game (or is described as such by a RS) with weaker sources than GNG. But I am not convinced that assassination is a new addition by this game, I cannot instantly recall such a game by name but Junta for example is a well-known game that themes assassination. The sources seem weak and unless the game has another name I couldn't find any sources. (The link to the award you give, doesn't appear to contain the game either.) Tetron76 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The link is to the cover artist's website. The cover art in question is mentioned under the Biography/Awards section. J1776 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the game is there as part of a list of designs that won the designer awards, but from there is no coverage to suggest that any of the awards have notability. Therefore, without another source referencing the award it still can have no bearing on considering the notability of the game.Tetron76 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Google didn't match the keywords to hit this but fore knowledge allowed me to find an online version. Despite, my earlier assertion that a RS stating the originality of a game may suffice, the complete lack of a second source covering the game other than an advert (The bgg link and dicetower don't seem independent from the game) means that at the present time it is impossible to demonstrate GNG.Tetron76 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per J1776. Article may need expansion, but it's satisfied notability requirements. Justin Bacon (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep : Reason: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/42882/world-war-iv-one-world-one-king —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.236.124 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have come to the conclusion that this article was not created in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Assuming IGF I suggest that User:J1776 goes through a system along the lines of Articles for creation before creating a further new article. The notability of an article is determined independently of such issues but it is necessary to at least consider WP:GNG. I went through every, google hit for several combinations. None, of the normal blogs have mentions of the games, there is virtually no forum chat. :*there is only 1 reliable source "Game Trade Magazine (#116))"
 * I'll not argue that the BGG page is hugely helpful here (see my delete above) but I'm curious about your claim of lack of independence. Why do you think that? Hobit (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2011 (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.