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. There seems to be a general agreement that this topic does not have enough coverage to be a stand-alone article. By the numbers, merge has it, but no merge target has been identified. In that case, I see deletion as the only outcome of this discussion. If someone identifies a merge target, the text can be provided so the merge can happen. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flinch (card game)[edit]

Flinch (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and doesn't meet GNG. Two refs provided only passingly mention the subject or provide rules (but the second isn't reliable), searching on Google Book shows a 1903 old book published by a gaming company with a WP article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_Move), but the creator has a COI, so I am not sure whether the book is an RS. VickKiang (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved version

A key citation was incorrect. I fixed it and added some new ones. Flinch is a legitimate piece of history that deserves to be preserved. Children love to play it with their grandparents.

And I had to search for this link: GNG, provided here for the convenience of others. --Bob K (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, I think that if you could provide me possible lines from the newspaper that would be great (transclude in talk page perhaps, are they more about the card game or the designer)? I think that most editors know GNG as the General Notability Guideline, but thanks for your link and apologies for any inconvenience. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be very adequate sourcing citations. Guinness323 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or redirect. Borderline, the current refs make it difficult to quickly verify whether SIGCOV is met. The coverage also seems limited to a small town in US (Kalamazoo, pop. ~75k). In My BEFORE I noticed few passing mentions in various works, including academic. [1], which might be reliable (Board Game Studies is a niche journal published by International Board Game Studies Association and despite over 20 years of history it still didn't get itself indexed anywhere, as far as I can tell) calls it "now-classic". I can't find anything better. Given the sparse and nicheness of sources (SIGCOV is not met as I no source I can access has an in-depth discussion of the game's significance), I am leaning delete. Would prefer a redirect target; maybe to current publisher which has a (poor, ad-like...) article? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't have ref 3, but it's a Who's Who? Another one (probably unrelated) is generally unreliable. I am not sure about whether ref 1 and 4 are significant (the latter is probably more about designer), since I don't have access, but we could assume it as so. Nor can I access ref 6, but it seems to be a rules overview- not significant enough probably, but not definitely. Of these I have access when I nom for the AfD, ref 2 is a rules mention and isn't significant, nor is ref 5 (rules overview). Your ref provided is interesting, the sources section list it as reliable, though there isn’t a discussion, but I assume, as it's peer-reviewed, it's definitely an RS. But the coverage is too short to ocunt as SIGCOV. So I agree that it’s probably borderline; I think deleting or merging/redirecting would be both fine. VickKiang (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have this redirect somewhere where it could be merged, but can't think of a good target (the modern publisher is likely not notable and needs to be deleted). History of board games in the United States, per the source cited, could be a valid topic, but nobody stubbed it yet... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @Guinness323: @Bob K: After more review, I do find this deletion to be borderline. On one hand, it has one ref that's probably an RS but isn't significant, and two that I can't access, they are maybe significant but the local newspaper might not be the most reliable; so it has good content, but I don't think there's anywhere to merge it to. So I'm still thinking either weak delete or merge, but there has to be a suitable article. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For help with newspaper sources, I always go to User:Timur9008. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't able to access the these particular newspapers since they are not on Newspapers.com Timur9008 (talk) 11:45 ,15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Timur9008: No worries. From what I can see, this article is still a bit borderline, IMO weak delete or neutral would be probably the best. Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon still sells the game (https://www.amazon.com/Flinch-Card-Game/s?k=Flinch+Card+Game), in case that matters.
--Bob K (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 more citations
--Bob K (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Amazon is generally unreliable on RSP and sells millions of products, so doesn’t help with notability. The three refs added have two self published sources and the user generated BGG, which aren’t reliable. Still, many thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment reading the article, this sounds like a turn-based variant of Nerts with a custom deck. Perhaps that or something like it would make a decent merge target? Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I felt that, considering that there are loads of refs that are presumably RS, and ref 1 and 4 might be significant enough, it might be suitable to close the AfD as no consensus or weak keep, and decide on whether there's a good redirect/merge target. I thought that the nom could potentially be withdrawn (and did it), but given that another editor supported deletion, Early closure is inappropriate where it appears that the withdrawal is simply an attempt to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. Right now I am probably neutral and support merge if there's a fine target, instead of the original deletion rationale. As I don't have the refs, so I can't comment on their significance (but I'd assume so). As such, I have rv my edit, but would agree this closed either weak keep or no consensus. Apologies for this, haven't closed using XfD before and wasn't aware of the non-admin caveats. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.