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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LCR (dice game)[edit]

LCR (dice game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. Violates WP:NOTGUIDE. ubiquity (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Virtually no coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, There are a few books coming up on google books that mention the game [1] [2], there are also a few articles [3] [4] [5] - the articles are not massively detailed but along with the books I'm leaning towards keep. Ym2X (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Of Ym2X's sources, none of the three internet articles establish notability. One is just a mention in a list article of popular dice games, so not sufficient coverage; another is a slightly longer but still brief mention in a list of gambling games to play during the Super Bowl and so not significant; the third seems to be a blog, so not reliable, and LCR is not really the focus of the piece, so not significant. Of the books, the second looks to be a single page from a book containing "over 100" games so that does not strike me as significant coverage - and, as far as I can see (although I can only see a small preview), it looks mostly a description of how to play the game without much that could support encyclopedic content. The first book source is a few pages in a book written about game design and discusses the game in a more analytical way (the features of the game which do/do not make it fun and how these might be used to design better games). This is still pretty short but I think just counts as significant coverage. Another source like this and I think the article would just squeeze past GNG; however, it is not enough on its own. The sources cites in the article are all primary. If someone could dig up another source (or ideally a couple more) like Ym2X's first source I'd be happy to !vote keep; as it stands, I'm delete. WJ94 (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2019 (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.