Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeping Queens

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. The article now features substantial third-party coverage. Sandstein 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Queens[edit]

I no longer believe that being invented by a child makes an otherwise ordinary card game notable. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was surprised to see that the manufacturer Gamewright is probably notable, but I don't think individual games are. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom.Arnoutf 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think that something invented by a six year old does have a spark of notability. In addition, this game has received quite a favourable welcome (mostly noted in parenting websites and blogs, so I have not listed them in the article). I've added a few positive independent third-party sources and reviews of this game to the article, including being listed on the "2006 Best Bet Awards" by the Canadian Toy Testing Council. Agent 86 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This does not appear notable. If Gamewright had an article I would suggest a merge. Soltak | Talk 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references, although minor, establish notability as per the primary criterion of WP:N. Ccscott 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've reformatted the references that were there and added another one covering the subject from the Washington Post. Please take another look. Ccscott 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear notable to me. Montco 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never heard of it. --Linear Model 08:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I've heard of it" and "I've never heard of it" are not reasons for deletion or retention. I hadn't heard of this game before, either, but I took the time to find out that it actually has a lot of coverage and attention. Agent 86 10:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Linear Model is new created vandal account. Hevesli 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The linked sources seem to indicate some notability. Can't say much about the award as I've not heard of the group awarding it, so I don't know how big it is. This article needs some serious expansion, though; it doesn't even give the slightest indication what the game consists of, besides cards. Tiakalla 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient news coverage demonstrated in above search. Addhoc 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent86. There's enough raw material to create a verifiable, neutral encyclopedic article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 10 February 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.