Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with concealed rules

:{{la|List of games with concealed rules}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|List of games with concealed rules}})

Needed more sources since 2007. Most examples are in-universe plot stuff, redlinked or not notable (7 11 Doubles drinking game). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

:Keep Minimal sourcing and redlinks are not sufficient reasons for deletion - this can be remedied by adding sources and creating additional pages. Non-notable additions to this list can be removed at any time, though a discussion on the talk page is always appreciated. Would support moving page to Games with concealed rules and adding additional prose. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - A number of the games here are notable and the list is helpful. Any game which is not notable can be removed from the list. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Major tidy and keep. I'd argue that the entire "in fiction" section needs removing. In addition to that, agree with nominator's implication that unreferenced redlinks need removing. But even then, there would be a not insignificant number of entries, the contents of the list are well defined and it seems slightly more useful than using an equivalent category or two. GDallimore (Talk) 00:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep "Needed more sources" is not a valid reason for deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is actually not an unreasonable nomination, given that most of the most notable games on the list do not actually fall within a reasonable reading of "concealed". Still, at most I'm neutral on this one, since I would like to see a trim and focus fail before agreeing that regular editing cannot solve the acknowledged problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep might be better as a category, but there's enough meat in it to make an article. Does the concept exist? yes. Are there refs for some of it ? yes. the rest is editing, not deletion. Greglocock (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2012 (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.