Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games: Difference between revisions

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: board, card, etc. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace “PageName” with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Games: board, card, etc. For the other XfD’s, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia’s deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

See also Sports-related deletions and Video games-related deletions.

Pill puzzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term “pill puzzle” generates some hits at a jstor, google scholar and general google search, but all unrelated to this probability problem, except for the one article that is referenced in the article. The term “pill jar puzzle” gives no hits at all. The term fails notability criteria as per wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ECO codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST, no indication why this list of codes would be a notable topic. They are in use, but we are not a database for everything that is in use. Fram (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ECO codes are very widely used in chess and are very obviously notable. That is why Wikipedia has lists of ECO codes in 27 other languages. Khiikiat (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not decided by how many other languages have an article, but by coverage in reliable independent sources. The ECO itself is clearly notable, but are the ECO codes a topic of discussion or just a tool used by other sources? Fram (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are suggesting that, if the codes are only used (but not discussed) in chess books and magazines, then the codes are not sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I am not sure that that is correct. However, even if it is correct, WP:NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Khiikiat (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: three quarters of the chart is empty and the lead doesn’t explain why this notable… Feels like it should have stayed in draft. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This list is not ready for prime time, inasmuch as it is mostly empty. Why not just move it to draft space?

I am not sure what sort of source would confer notability. The Chess Informant series, begun in the 1960’s, and the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, first edition from the late 1970’s, are both entirely organized by this classification system. These are popular and respected publications, but I do not know if their use of this system would be considered to make the system “notable”. The system was invented for the purpose of organizing the Informant series, and when the same publisher decided to produce the Encyclopedias, it was an obvious choice. The popular chess game databases, such as chessgames.com and 365Chess.com, have their own lists of ECO codes, but we do not consider these reliable sources, because the level of editorial control is less than certain. Usually, when an article about a chess opening or variation is published, it mentions the ECO code or codes under which the opening or variation is classified; this is also true of books. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The French and Spanish versions of this page are obviously superior. Could someone with subject matter expertise get this article into a respectable state without too much trouble? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’d want to see evidence that these codes see use in reliable sources (other than where they were defined). I’m less concerned that this isn’t done. I’d like a paragraph that explains why they are useful and how they are used, with references. Or just include that here for now. Whatever. As it is, the article fails WP:N/WP:LISTN. I can believe that the topic meets LISTN, I just need evidence. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but likely needs to be merged with List of chess openings. ECO codes as a group are notable and thus meets WP:NLIST. However, List of chess openings also uses these ECO codes and probably presents the list better. https://www.365chess.com/eco.php shows another way to list these codes without making it as much of a trainwreck as our article currently. – SD0001 (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that all the major chess sites have their own lists of ECO codes indicates that the world needs one good list of ECO codes. Ours should exist, and it should be the best. The same description applies to Glossary of chess: there is no single topic that is notable, other than chess itself; but the world needs a glossary, and Wikipedia is the place for that glossary, and Wikipedia’s glossary should be the best around. Bruce leverett (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete List of chess openings, an entirely unsourced indiscriminate collection of information. The IP editor clearly doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as an “official” opening name in chess. There is only tradition, which has evolved over the centuries, and many opening names (e.g. Sicilian Defence) are now universal, but that doesn’t mean they have any “official” status with any chess governing body. Besides different writers have used some names differently, e.g. Italian Game. Many of the opening names listed have no historic basis and appear to have arisen recently on the internet, some of them being little more than memes. ECO codes, on the other hand, have been almost usniversally adopted in chess publications since their introduction in the 1970s. A full list of ECO codes would be a great addition to the encyclopedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• How’s about draftifying the current ECO list, and giving editors a chance to turn it into something that can reasonably compete with the List of chess openings, which indeed is unsourced, entirely appropriate for a chess-hobbyists’ site, but doesn’t conform to Wikipedia’s standards. Once the current list is in shape, we’d be in a position to decide between the two. In terms of Asilvering‘s question, it’s not clear to me which of these two articles is less redeemable. Elemimele (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per User:Maxbrowne2 this list is more clearly definable than List of chess openings, and also merge List of chess openings into this article. This would fix the problem that three-fourths of the chart is empty. This version is better-sourced, and then we can add sources to the remaining 3/4 merged in. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The list is now mostly completed, User:Khiikiat has just about finished entering the codes from the original source, the first edition of ECO, so that addresses the issue of incompleteness. List of chess openings was originally conceived as a catalogue of ECO codes, as this original version shows. So in effect we’ve got a better (but still improvable) version of the original concept behind List of chess openings, which has become a total dog’s breakfast. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]