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 redirect to List of Hasbro games#M. Sandstein 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malarkey (board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unreferenced board game article, BGG has no reviews and even no forum posts about this niche product. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD was removed by User:Andrew Davidson with no useful rationale, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given it's a well-known publisher, I'd prefer a redirect, but other than to the publisher, which doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't know where to. There is no list article for Parker Brothers games (though there likely should be). If no redirect target can be found, then delete. Hobit (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It actually is already included on the List of Hasbro games#M, as Hasbro became the parent company of the Parker Brothers brand after buying them out in 1991 (which was coincidentally the same year this game was published). Would that work as a viable Redirect target? Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• yep! Hobit (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as well, and SOFDELETE is always preferable in such cases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And so, once again, a Piotrus Prod is found to be invalid because there's a sensible alternative to deletion. See WP:BEFORE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Hasbro games per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. While the Hasbro list article, being a list, is not a viable option for a merge, at the very least it could function as the target of a redirect. StonyBrook (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While the article has been expanded, most of the content remains unreferenced, and the added sources are either mentions in passing (Orlando Sentinel) or unreliable (BGG, Youtube). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested above. I'm not convinced there are enough reliable secondary sources to justify an article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2021 (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.