Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Go to Jail

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go to Jail

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I originally proposed the deletion of this article with the concern, "This article only cites a primary source, while the rest of it is unsourced. I tried searching for secondary sources (including books and scholars) but found none. Therefore, this topic most likely fails the general notability guideline." User:BOZ then removed the PROD and suggested that the article be merged to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs, which I thought would be inappropriate because all of its text is pretty much unsalvageable, not to mention that the one primary source used to cite one sentence is now a permanent dead link. There was also the suggestion of redirecting to said page, which I was a bit skeptical about because the only mention of it there cites About.com (known today as Dotdash Meredith), which is a situational source according to the perennial sources list. (For the reliability of the source in the context of board games, I'll leave that up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games.) Basically, I'm still favoring this article's deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs. The author of About.com review counts as subject matter expert (cited by New York Times, Tuscaloosa News, NPR). There's also a review by spieletest.at: [1]. Author is Arno Steinwender, who seems to be a notable board game designer, could also be counted as a subject matter expert. About.com review is too short to count as WP:SIGCOV and so there's not enough sources for a keep but I think merge is appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that. There were some additional sources mentioned at Talk:Don't Go to Jail#Sources which should also be considered if content is to be moved there. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to check the talk page. So the game was reviewed by Reich der Spiele: [2]. The site seems fairly reliable, its editorial policies appear to be very good: [3], [4], and it is cited by other sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Plus there's a print magazine review by de:Spielbox that briefly mentions the game: [11]. 2 standard reviews, 1 short one, and 1 brief mention. Enough for a keep I think. --Mika1h (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially after comment from BOZ. There is enough here for notability in the sourcing to meet GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the detective work by BOZ, it appears to meet GNG. Nayyn (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2025 (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.