Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanbo

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod and prod2 "declined" by an admin placing a hangon. I'm stunned.

In any event, there are little to no sources to be found anywhere. Someone added a book source, but a thorough search of Google Books and plain Google for "tanbo -weapon" turns up almost nothing beyond the single source already in the article — in fact, the hits are so few that Google autocorrects to "tambo". The declining admin said that he found sources, but this (no author credits), this (an open wiki) and this (a site that allows playing Tanbo online) are in no way reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no sources to be found anywhere" and "the single source already in the article" would appear to be contradictory phrases. The search arguments that I used were Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, finding the couple of book pages referenced in the article and a passing mention in another book. I haven't examined the general web search results in detail because I have no idea whether any of the sites found are reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified argument. Also, among the first pages of your Google search, I still find nothing resembling a reliable source. A couple pages in one book and a one-sentence mention in another certainly do not constitute non-trivial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first book hit is merely game instruction (the whole book is just rules of various games). There's no meaningful coverage of the topic. The second book hit is even less. Google search returns the site of the creator, forums, wikis, and a site whose domain registration has expired. None of the sites are reliable, nor do they have anything more than "It's a game created by Mark Steere, and this is how you play it." Absent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, it must go. » scoops “5x5„ 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (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.