Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrabble variants

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. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble variants

The page is a harbor for people to post their own home-grown Scrabble variations that are original research and have not been reported upon independently. Anything that is notable has its own article already. Andy Saunders 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would be better served by a category, [[Category:Scrabble_tile_games]]? meshach 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion yet, and the nominator has a point, but I'm sympathetic to the article: Scrabble is clearly one of the most popular games in the world, so it's natural that there are variants. Some variants themselves may not be notable, so they might not be worthy of their own articles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them at all. I notice that multiple editors have contributed, that we've got images here and there are actually some references. It seems to me that if even two of these variants have some notability (and that's the case), then it seems fair to say that variants of Scrabble have notability as a whole. Perhaps the contributors can add some references/footnotes, and then we'd be able to better judge whether this was stuff made up at home or not. I'll ask them.Noroton 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely there's a source for these variations on a popular game. Aren't there any websites for the International Scrabble League and similar things? If all else fails, look at the inside of the box top. Mandsford 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some footnotes and it now has six, so a good number of variations are confirmed elsewhere, and I think that shows that Wikipedia has a verified, notable subject and that the article, while still flawed, remains valid. One or two of the new footnotes had been deleted by the article by someone on External Links patrol. Some other footnotes come from the articles for some of the variants. I've added "citation needed" tags as well. Perhaps someone else who thinks the subject worthy of a Wikipedia article will look for citable sources on the Web. Noroton 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, commending the excellent WP:HEY by Noroton bringing this article up to standard. There are sources including books and articles in magazines such as Games (magazine) over the years, but they may not be online. Certainly a game that has had a book written about its national championship (Word Freak) has had some of these variant rules distributed through WP:RS at some point.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve/cite. This article currently has some questionable variants (Volost? Seriously?) that should be deleted if they can't be cited, and the other variants should be cited to show notability. However, the article still is a coherent, focused, and informative list when properly cleaned up and deserves to stay. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:19, 4 September 2007 (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.