- 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. While the ideal merger target hasn't been identified, there is consensus to keep the content at a location TBD. That can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The Game of Alice in Wonderland
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Game of Alice in Wonderland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this while trying to clean up Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The two sources are dead, as is the link in the attribution template on Talk:The Game of Alice in Wonderland. There is another game, called The New & Diverting Game of Alice in Wonderland, which is probably not notable either but which I see some hits for: [1] [2]. I'd happily be proven wrong here but I don't see a GNG pass. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment
[3] looks like a probably reliable source.
[4] is maybe a bit more than a passing reference. I suspect the (now dead) links in the article may have only a bit more. I'd really prefer not to see this deleted and am hopeful someone can find more.
Hobit (
talk)
03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your first link led me to [5], which has more pictures but the text is mostly a general comment on Alice and not on the game in particular. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. It seems like some non-notable historical object that sadly did not generate much if any coverage so far. We have one sentence and few pictures here, and the second link seems dead and not saved in the Internet Archive. The book Hobi found has two sentences and I am sorry, it is a passing reference in my book. Ping me if anyone finds new good sources. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. @
Hobit and
Piotrus: I also found the following: "In the U.S. Selchow and Righter produced a trick-taking game in 1882 while in England Thomas de La Rue & Co. created a 'Go Fish' Alice game around 1899. Both versions adapt John Tenniel's original illustrations." That's on page 27 of
doi:
10.4324/9781351392143. Now that we can verify this game's existence, maybe a merge to
Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games is appropriate?
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems like a good solution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm hoping we can find more, but that's much better than deletion. And we have other RSes, so we are well past WP:V. It's just none of them are hugely in-depth. Hobit ( talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The article has been expanded significantly, if that helps.
BOZ (
talk)
12:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The expansion relies substantially on
[6], which I do not consider a
WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already.
[7] is arguably SIGCOV;
[8], not so much.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic?
Hobit (
talk)
03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
- A matching game, The Game of Alice in Wonderland consists of 52 cards: twenty cards numbered 1–20, and thirty–two cards, numbered 1–16 in pairs, with images of the Wonderland characters.
- Pictured below are images of cards from the game and illustrations from various editions of Alice in Wonderland in the Lilly Library collection.
- Curiouser examples of playing cards for the Alice in Wonderland Game
- Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
- Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic?
Hobit (
talk)
03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- The expansion relies substantially on
[6], which I do not consider a
WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already.
[7] is arguably SIGCOV;
[8], not so much.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- By themselves, not a ton, but with the art included? I'd say we're over the edge of significant coverage. Add to it the fact that the Lily Collection includes this and documents it makes it feel like something we should have here too. YMMV. Hobit ( talk) 15:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've been going back and forth. I think I'm at weak keep Two okay sources on an older topic where such sources are harder to find. That said, I think an article, rather than list, on the topics of AiW games might make sense. Hobit ( talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Being the first game published about one of the most popular chidren's books in history establishes notability. The search for further sources continues, but it could be that someone will have to go through microfiche rolls of American newspapers of 1882 to find further information.
Guinness323 (
talk)
06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Being the first X of Y does not make something notable. There has to be significant coverage about it. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Hobit and Guinness323, although I would note that if a volunteer has access to Newspapers.com then we don't need to bother with microfiche. :)
BOZ (
talk)
16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I looked it up in newspapers.com and I see nothing. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to
Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games - BGG is generally not considered a reliable source due to being user generated, and the two other sources are fairly weak in actual information on the game - the Indiana University page, for example, really only has a couple of sentences of actual coverage of the game itself. Its really not enough to sustain an independent article, but should certainly be included in the main article on works based on Alice.
Rorshacma (
talk)
19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Things is that I think we should have more than a sentence. Our coverage, should for example, include the art. The proposed target it too broad. But I agree a standalone article seems like too much... Bah. Hobit ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (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.
- 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. While the ideal merger target hasn't been identified, there is consensus to keep the content at a location TBD. That can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The Game of Alice in Wonderland
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Game of Alice in Wonderland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this while trying to clean up Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The two sources are dead, as is the link in the attribution template on Talk:The Game of Alice in Wonderland. There is another game, called The New & Diverting Game of Alice in Wonderland, which is probably not notable either but which I see some hits for: [1] [2]. I'd happily be proven wrong here but I don't see a GNG pass. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment
[3] looks like a probably reliable source.
[4] is maybe a bit more than a passing reference. I suspect the (now dead) links in the article may have only a bit more. I'd really prefer not to see this deleted and am hopeful someone can find more.
Hobit (
talk)
03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your first link led me to [5], which has more pictures but the text is mostly a general comment on Alice and not on the game in particular. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. It seems like some non-notable historical object that sadly did not generate much if any coverage so far. We have one sentence and few pictures here, and the second link seems dead and not saved in the Internet Archive. The book Hobi found has two sentences and I am sorry, it is a passing reference in my book. Ping me if anyone finds new good sources. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. @
Hobit and
Piotrus: I also found the following: "In the U.S. Selchow and Righter produced a trick-taking game in 1882 while in England Thomas de La Rue & Co. created a 'Go Fish' Alice game around 1899. Both versions adapt John Tenniel's original illustrations." That's on page 27 of
doi:
10.4324/9781351392143. Now that we can verify this game's existence, maybe a merge to
Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games is appropriate?
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems like a good solution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm hoping we can find more, but that's much better than deletion. And we have other RSes, so we are well past WP:V. It's just none of them are hugely in-depth. Hobit ( talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The article has been expanded significantly, if that helps.
BOZ (
talk)
12:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The expansion relies substantially on
[6], which I do not consider a
WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already.
[7] is arguably SIGCOV;
[8], not so much.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic?
Hobit (
talk)
03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
- A matching game, The Game of Alice in Wonderland consists of 52 cards: twenty cards numbered 1–20, and thirty–two cards, numbered 1–16 in pairs, with images of the Wonderland characters.
- Pictured below are images of cards from the game and illustrations from various editions of Alice in Wonderland in the Lilly Library collection.
- Curiouser examples of playing cards for the Alice in Wonderland Game
- Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
- Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic?
Hobit (
talk)
03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- The expansion relies substantially on
[6], which I do not consider a
WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already.
[7] is arguably SIGCOV;
[8], not so much.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- By themselves, not a ton, but with the art included? I'd say we're over the edge of significant coverage. Add to it the fact that the Lily Collection includes this and documents it makes it feel like something we should have here too. YMMV. Hobit ( talk) 15:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've been going back and forth. I think I'm at weak keep Two okay sources on an older topic where such sources are harder to find. That said, I think an article, rather than list, on the topics of AiW games might make sense. Hobit ( talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Being the first game published about one of the most popular chidren's books in history establishes notability. The search for further sources continues, but it could be that someone will have to go through microfiche rolls of American newspapers of 1882 to find further information.
Guinness323 (
talk)
06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Being the first X of Y does not make something notable. There has to be significant coverage about it. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Hobit and Guinness323, although I would note that if a volunteer has access to Newspapers.com then we don't need to bother with microfiche. :)
BOZ (
talk)
16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I looked it up in newspapers.com and I see nothing. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to
Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games - BGG is generally not considered a reliable source due to being user generated, and the two other sources are fairly weak in actual information on the game - the Indiana University page, for example, really only has a couple of sentences of actual coverage of the game itself. Its really not enough to sustain an independent article, but should certainly be included in the main article on works based on Alice.
Rorshacma (
talk)
19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Things is that I think we should have more than a sentence. Our coverage, should for example, include the art. The proposed target it too broad. But I agree a standalone article seems like too much... Bah. Hobit ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (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.