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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Train[edit]

Take the Train (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)

I initially PRODed this with the following rationale - "A seemingly non-notable game that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The current article has no secondary sources, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage on the game in reliable sources." However, I neglected to notice that it had already been PRODed and contested in the past, making it ineligible for a PROD now. To elaborate further, while the game certainly existed, I have found no actual sources that would count as actual significant coverage of the game. The only source in the article, which was the rationale for contesting the original PROD in 2016, is just the instruction manual for the game, and obviously not valid for establishing notability. I had considered proposing a Merge to either United States Playing Card Company or Bicycle Playing Cards, but the lack of sources on the game and apparent complete non-notability of it made me decide that was not an appropriate course of action, as it would give undue coverage of an extremely non-notable product in those articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As it is, this article is just a set of instructions, and WP:NOTHOWTO needs to be kept in mind. If someone could find an independent source about the game then maybe we could completely rewrite the article, but that looks unlikely to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm struggling to find much of anything. [1] might be a reliable review. But that's all I can find. Please ping me if you find better. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm good with Userfying per Piotrus as probably the better choice. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or preferred Userfy. Pretty obscure (BGG link: RANK: OVERALL 24,102FAMILY 2,903). Even if the review Hobit found is reliable (doesn't look great, but I did not check the site for editorial contriols), we would still be short of another good source (GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, my rule of thumb is that two reliable reviews are bare minimum). Note that usefication/drafticiation might be better than deletion, creator is still occasionally active (made few edits last year). Maybe they'll try to fix it in a year or two if we leave it in their userspace?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 2 November 2023 (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.