Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alea evangelii (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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alea evangelii (game)

Page's only editor has attempted to blank the page and has removed (his own) links from other pages to this one, suggesting he wants it deleted. The page is about a notable historic boardgame which is already described at tafl, to which alea evangelii still redirects. The page as it stands gives unacceptable legitimacy to the editor's original-research reconstruction of the rules which are unknown, but some of the information in it (e.g. the image) is verifiable. No vote. —Blotwell 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as it seems to be an extended version of the information in the Tafl games article. It appears if people are trying to merge everything together into Tafl games, but at the expense of more detailed information in articles such as Alea evangelii (game)? For instance, Tafl games does not detail how pieces move in the game, whereas Alea evangelii (game) does contain this information. --Phanton 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would like this page deleted. - JeremiahClayton

• Comment: any reason for deletion? --Phanton

• Keep. Interesting, why would it be deleted? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- valuable article, which makes clear case for differentiating this game from others, on account of board dimensions --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Considering I listed less references for this article than I did for the article pertaining to the game Irides and that article was deleted.. it stands to reason that this article should be deleted also.. for the same reason. - Jeremiah Clayton
• Keep. AfD relies on guidelines, not precedent. And I can see no established reason for deletion here. Turnstep 12:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The nominator raised concerns about the verifiability of the information in the article, and none of the preceding comments speak to that, except for an apparent acknowledgement from the article's author that he did not provide references. The article as it currently stands mentions a manuscript, but does not cite any references whatsoever. --DavidConrad 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable unless someone can provide information to satisfy WP:V and WP:CITE, per above. This has low Google and groups. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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.