Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online skill-based game

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. Any merge discussion should be taken to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online skill-based game

Page is basically unreferenced, with misused references that don't establish notability. Should be deleted, or merged into Online gambling, or a mention of competing for money in the Game of skill article. Also concerned that this is just an excuse to pimp lots of online gaming sites, many of which are redlinked. Anitpatel (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Weak Merge with Online gambling. The actual industry term in common use is "Skill gaming", so the article is mis-named. The subject is notable enough for its own article, but the article as it stands now needs cleanup. Needing cleanup isn't a valid reason for deletion though. If we deleted every article that might be used to pimp other sites, we wouldn't have any articles left, so that's not a valid deltion reason either. Rray (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have some references to support that? I think that's half the reason I haven't been able to find anything on this subject. A rename might make it easier to establish notability. But if no one can do that, we should delete or merge this article. Anitpatel (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search for "skill gaming" brings back almost 80,000 results, so references probably exist. (A Google News search only brings back 16 results though, but that's still a significant number for something that's "non-notable".) I don't have specific references to add, nor do I have the time at the moment to clean up the article myself. (The wife is away and I have to take care of three children tonight.) Rray (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This also raises concerns about WP:neologism. That's one more reason this should be condensed to a quick mention in online gambling. Anitpatel (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being a neologism isn't a reason for deletion either. Rray (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Case that this article is policy-noncompliant hasn't been made. Article could use cleanup but that's not a reason to AFD it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge and Redirect into a separate section of Online game, which this is really just a fork of; the games are the same, only the chance to win money is different. Black Kite 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much to great potential content to merge. No evidence of spam so far, though that wouldnt be reason to delete in any case, just to watchlist.DGG (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or merge. I agree this a non-notable fork from Online gambling, or possibly Game of skill, but since most of these games are driven by web based advertising, I would suggest the former is a better merge candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge topic seems to have the required minimum references for WP:N, but I share the nominator's concern about the article being used as a farm for redlinks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge. Limited notability. Best fit with an article on online gambling. Ludologist12 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a suitable article (Online game would be my choice). One can find coverage which discusses "online games of skill" or specific instances thereof, but I'm not convinced the subject is discussed in sufficient generality to justify a separate article yet. --Sturm 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid, referenced, verifiable, clearly separable topic. Mukadderat (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—references establish notability. Concerns about spam seem excessive. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus as of Feb 14:I still don't see how the advocates for "keeping" have established even one valid reference about "online skill-based games". There's one article from about.com that talks about competing for money online, but no explicit mention of the concept in this article. And another white paper about how to make money off of games, which I'm concerned isn't even a valid reference. The purpose of a white paper is (quote from wikipedia page) "designed to promote a specific company's solutions or products as it relates to the issue or topic examined". This is the epitome of WP:SPAM.
These two references (one that doesn't mention the concept, and one that is not reliable) are not enough.
Still, it looks like there is a decent consensus for a merge. People are split about deletion. But of the 11 contributors to this page, 7 would have stated they agree with a merge, and the remaining four don't appear to be against it. I understand this isn't a vote, but we may be able to extract a consensus here. A merge keep the information, and delete the "online skill-based game" article, which is a decent compromise. Anitpatel (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your contention, the about.com reference is about the subject of this article. As for the white paper, any number of organizations, commercial and noncommercial, issue white papers. This one is from IGDA, a nonprofit industry association which the article does not promote in any way. Spacepotato (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (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.