Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High stakes backgammon

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. ✗plicit 02:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High stakes backgammon

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

High stakes backgammon (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)

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they purportedly existed, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on media coverage to establish their significance (e.g. noteworthy awards, critical analysis, etc.) -- but this is completely unsourced, and has been tagged as such since 2009 without ever having any new sources added. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete found a couple passing mentions to prove it's not a hoax, but nothing constituting significant coverage. How did this article go so long without even being properly capitalized? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found IMDB and trivial mentions on Google, but no RS meeting GNG, the article also lacks refs at all. VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, it looks like a hoax, based on the improper title and the "article" itself. I also found IMDb and trivial mentions, but those are nowhere near enough for notability. Can't believe this has managed to stay here since 2006. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2022 (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.