Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monopoly (Star Wars)

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. Tone 15:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (Star Wars)

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

There is no need for separate article about Star Wars monopoly. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: two-line article with no sourcing; utterly fails
WP:GNG, and since there is no reliable sourcing there is nothing here to merge.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to either
Star Wars Monopoly redirects to, or List of licensed and localized editions of Monopoly: USA#S, where the several Star Wars editions are listed. I don't think that the disambig would make a redirect useless in this case. Ansh6 6 6 00:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As stated above, the page should be deleted. It does not give enough information or any details on the Star Wars Monopoly game. It is only a partial overview with no sources to back it up. The page also made a promotional claim without a citation. Maybe if there were references it could be merged to Monopoly (game). Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody is going to type "Monopoly (Star Wars)" into the search field. And there's no need for a separate article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody familiar with WP title disambiguation might. Or "Monopoly (Star Wars version)" or something like that. I know that I do that type of thing sometimes. Maybe I'm just crazy... Ansh6 6 6 05:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested an unlikely redirect here once, and some more practical-minded editor pointed out that nobody but Wikipedia diehards would ever type that in. I had the same reaction as you: "Ha, I do that." But I think that other guy was right. Redirects are cheap, but there's no reason to create ones that depend on esoteric knowledge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But, we're not creating one: it already exists. Ansh6 6 6 01:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the harm in keeping the redirect would be, though it would help only a few people. So redirect but I don't have a serious problem with outright deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compare Star Wars Pez, which is a notable merchandizing effort. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars pez.) Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing redirects, such as
Star Wars Monopoly, should be sufficient navigational devices. This title implies an entity or event called Monopoly in the Star Wars universe (or related to Star Wars in the real world). I have a copy of this game—maybe even two—and can confirm that its name is not simply Monopoly. --BDD (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2013 (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.