Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Games|sig=~~~~}} 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games/archive

watch

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

Games-related deletions

Himalayan Harmony Group

Himalayan Harmony Group (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:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPIND, being press releases or directly based on them. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Nepal. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This subject does not meet any of our guidelines for notability. Aneirinn (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – the sourcing is GlobeNewswire press releases republished on StreetInsider and in the Manila Times, plus gambling-industry blogs and the company's own site; none of it is independent (WP:ORGIND). Kukuryza (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

List of Trivial Pursuit editions

List of Trivial Pursuit editions (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)

I propose redirecting to Trivial Pursuit because it is seemingly an indiscriminate list. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Irrespective of the final decision, that list needs to be wholly reformatted if it is retained. It currently combines the worst features of tables with the worst features of definition lists into one terribly-formatted and unsortable sequence of entries. I suggest a table with eight columns (edition name, release year, and the six coloured ovals with a matching colour name in text for the categories). Also remove text such as "very hard to find", which is irrelevant here. Mindmatrix 15:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: ProQuest returns nearly 60,000 hits for the term "Trivial Pursuit" (in quotation marks), so there should be sufficient sources to potentially flesh out this list or convert it into its own article (say, Editions of Trivial Pursuit), as merging wholesale into the parent would likely overwhelm that article. Mindmatrix 15:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment If merged into the Editions section of Trivial Pursuit, the updated table should be collapsible so it won't overwhelm the article. And then the Trivial Pursuit Millennium Edition page should probably be considered for deletion, since it's already covered in this list. SupermarketCake (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE is a tad wishy-washy, but makes clear that we should not collapse article content. So, if this was added to Trivial Pursuit, it would stand strong in its uncollapsed glory. Given that would be... awkward, it recommends making a separate article (well... what do we have here). This list isn't indiscriminate in anyway, it has clear criteria (be an edition of Trivial Pursuit). It meets NLIST as useful, and has also been treated as a class by secondary sources . (The Gamer is WP:VALNET, whose sources can't normally be used to provide notability, but I have no clue how that interacts with NLIST, and The Gamer is generally regarded as more reliable than other VALNET publications.) So, keep 1brianm7 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup - Formatting is hellish, but the list does have clear criteria, is useful and has available support by secondary sources so can't see rationale to get rid of it entirely. Merging is not a suitable alternative as it would overwhelm target article.

BleachPuffin (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep per BleachPuffin. This isn't indiscriminate (criteria are clear and finite), and that's the only reason given for the redirect. Week because I'm not personally sure we need this, but eh. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hârn (campaign set)

Hârn (campaign set) (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)

I propose merging to Hârn because these two articles cover the same subject. Hârn (campaign set) is a description of the role-playing game, Hârn seems to have started as description of the island from the role-playing game, but currently describes the role-playing game itself, too. I propose merging to the article without disambiguator parentheses. Cyfal (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge, duplicate articles. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Games-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. I think this article could have probably been merged boldly. It never hurts to get consensus, but if it isn't a controversial topic you can just go ahead and merge it. If there is any disagreement, which rarely happens, you could bring it here to resolve that and get outside input. ​ FaviFake (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose this merge as suggested, with alternative options. I have been debating this one to myself for a few days.

• First of all, the content between these two articles is not duplicated. Hârn (campaign set) is about a single publication, the first work published by N. Robin Crossby for his world for Columbia Games. The article Hârn is about the world, the setting itself, and its details are given there. There are very small overlaps between the two articles, namely the both cite Dragon #77 for reception information; there is slight overlap in the quotes pulled, but most of that citation does not overlap. Both articles also mention and briefly discuss each other, as they should. Essentially, if you read through the two articles with that in mind, you will see that they are about two clearly separated but related topics.
• Hârn (campaign set) could be moved to Hârn Regional Module, as its cover reads, to help avoid any confusion with the setting. I'll admit the disambiguator I chose was not the best. :) The set is clearly notable as shown by its citation of several sources, so it should not be merged anywhere.
• If it is determined that Hârn should not have its own article (more information can undoubtedly be pulled from the Appelcline source, as he is fond of talking about game settings) then I suggest it could be merged to N. Robin Crossby or Columbia Games.
• Alternatively, both articles could be kept as they are, and edited slightly to keep the focus on the initial published work for Hârn (campaign set) and on the fictional world for Hârn. BOZ (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with BOZ, these are two different animals, one being the campaign world overall (a concept), and one being a specific product. A bit of editing to both articles should make it clear. I would also support a name change to Harn Regional Module, since that is actually the name of the product.Guinness323 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• keep and do not merge. There may be a good editorial reason to merge, but the arguments for doing so (duplicate) are just wrong. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Elder Tunnels

Elder Tunnels (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)

I propose draftifying because references are absolutely junk. scope_creep^Talk 20:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tunnels & Trolls. The nominator is right about the sourcing. The only verifiable independent source is Casus Belli (2012), which mentions it briefly in a survey about T&T. Everything else is either self-published or not independent: two posts on a personal blog, a blog post by Scott Malthouse (one of the magazine's own staff writers), another blog post, a forum thread, a YouTube video, Flying Buffalo's licensee list, and DriveThruRPG store pages. This does not meet WP:GNG. Draftifying will not help, as the magazine ceased production in 2021 and more reliable sources are not likely to appear. A sentence about Elder Tunnels sourced to Casus Belli can be included in the Tunnels & Trolls article, with this title redirected to it. El Banhara (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Article author perspective: I got the idea to write Elder Tunnels article when I stumbled across the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Role-playing_game_magazines, and noticed a lack of T&T magazines in that category. I read many of the articles in that category. There are several small-publisher, small-print run magazines in that category, and some of them have few sources, references, and/or a short print run and scant history. I don't mean to devolve into whataboutism, but I suggest Elder Tunnels is at least as notable as some of those other magazines, even as I now acknowledge most of the sources on the Elder Tunnels article fall under WP:UGC, and some of those other articles are flagged as needing more citations. In the meantime I will see about finding more sources or even reviews that do not fall under WP:UGC. Bassaf (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge the History section, edited down a little, to a subsection of Tunnels & Trolls#List of Tunnels & Trolls publications alongside the other periodical there. I couldn't find any better sources either, and that only leaves Casus Belli in terms of reception. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The history section seems to have 5 references - 1 is non-rs, 2 seems to an unbylined blog post, 3 looks like clickbait, 4 is non-rs, 5 is a forum. Not a single one of these is suitable for a merge section somehwhere else. I would siggest a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 06:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Adam Sampson I will concede that all Reception section sources except the Casus Belli one, could be removed to comply with reliable source guidelines, but I still suggest the article is notable enough. At least as notable if not more than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Star which is a magazine in the same category, which has only one reference and very little other content, and whose article has been on Wikipedia since 2018. It was because of seeing other mags like this with so little content, that gave me idea to create article in the first place.

I also agree moving some of the third party licensing history to the main T&T article would work as it is not specific to Elder Tunnels, but affected all third party products, but the List of T&T publications in the T&T article are for officially published products by Flying Buffalo, except for the small Supplements by other companies section. If that Supplements by other companies section were to be expanded to include all third party publications it will fill up many pages as they are many fanzines and 3rd party products for T&T. (E.g. Dungeoneer Digest, Trollszine, Hobbit Hole magazine, etc.) A new article just for that list of supplements by other companies would be justified just based on amount of periodicals that could be listed there.

@Scope creep as for references in the history section, the first, despite being on Word Press, was an official news post by Flying Buffalo staff member Steve Crompton on the official T&T home page before Webbed Sphere bought T&T. Does being on Wordpress disqualify it categorically or does context make a difference? Likewise, the second is a news post by Rebellion, the current owners of T&T intellectual property. Although you point out it was not given official byline to a person but rather treated as a news update does that disqualify it? Would adding a byline help? I could contact them and ask them to attribute it to an author. Given it is official website of the company does that not make it a worthy source despite the missing byline? The third can be removed, no argument there. In fact on second glance I don't see why I even included that. The fourth link, to youtube, I included as it was coverage of the Webbed Sphere termination of third party licenses that I couldn't find web articles for elsewhere, but do concede it could full under WP:UGC. How does Wikipedia handle information that is common or widespread knowledge but somehow isn't sourceable? (Homework project for myself to find out.) The fifth source as a forum I concede is WP:UGC. But, I think scope_creep's argument is that the content of the History section isn't sourceable and therefore the article has less meat to it by removing the entire section. Even so, it would still be as "meaty" as Alien Star.

As for the Reception sources, I can remove all but Casus Belli as there seems to be consensus the other sources are not Reliable. Although as a matter of reception I argue the Drivethrurpg copper best seller mention points to "Reception" if only to indicate its appeal. Or does that also violate a WP policy? I see many articles that use Drivethrurpg as a source, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragonlance_modules_and_sourcebooks#cite_note-:14-3 . As articles in AfD can still be edited during discussion I went ahead and removed all but Casus and Drivethru. Bassaf (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No, not adding a byline will help. You need WP:SECONDARY sources to prove the subject is notable. Even if the official news post, that would still make it a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability. The same with Rebellion. That is WP:PRIMARY. Youtube is not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 20:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)