Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxy II

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 play-by-mail games. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy II

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, as at least 2 sources are required to establish notability. Previously PRODed, but the tag was removed (see talk page). — Newslinger talk 23:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found below, or merge to Play-by-mail game. BOZ (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit or Redirect) With only one source in evidence, and no more discernible via a cursory search, the product lacks WP:SIGCOV that would allow it to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search will require more than just Google--this game is a bit old. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All of my cursory BEFOREs check three indices (Google News/Books/Scholar, JSTOR, and newspapers.com) which is, in fact, beyond what is required by WP:BEFORE. Beyond that, if more arcane sources exist, it is the onus of the article creator to present them either in the article or the AFD discussion; !voters in AfD discussions are not expected to go to extraordinary lengths, such as spending an afternoon in the rare documents collection at the NYPL, before registering a !vote. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true, Chetsford, what is also true is that AfD participants are expected to pay attention to context. It is much better to give credit that editors are looking for dead tree sources when they say they are, than it is to ignore reliable dead tree sources when presented, which has been your practice at AfD - "I'm not seeing it"; "may have existed". Newimpartial (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I give credit to you for looking for dead tree sources. Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly just wanted assurance you had looked for dead tree sources. :) --Izno (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need a List of play-by-mail games I think. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, solidly. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BOZ: get at it ~ --Izno (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't do everything game-related around here. ;) But, I will see what I can do later today or this week. PBM not my best area of expertise, but I think it's a subject worth tackling. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I started the list. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, excellent, good work! Then, I will have to see what I can find to add to that. I'm sure there must have been some coverage in Dragon and other contemporary sources. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I mostly just grabbed the articles out of Category:Play-by-mail games which also had at least one obvious independent, likely reliable, source to the games themselves. All of which were yours, as it happens. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list survived NPP, so I'm happy to redirect to list of play-by-mail games given a lack of great sourcing. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of play-by-mail games. At this point, a redirect looks more appropriate than deletion. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, do any of these count as WP:RS?: [1] [2] [3] [4] BOZ (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1 is bylined by Brett Tondreau, the game's creator, and is not WP:INDEPENDENT. #4 is a letter to the editor and is, therefore, not RS. #2/#3 is fine but is just a single piece of coverage as it's an identical article that was simply syndicated from Elementary Electronics to Budget Electronics, or visa versa. This single piece of coverage now means we have two pieces of unique coverage which may meet the bare minimum under exceptional circumstances, but is rarely sufficient for a commercial product. Chetsford (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Which brings us back to the key, if poorly articulated, question of whether games are best understood as CREATIVE products or commercial PRODUCTs. In the case of pbm, I don't think there is much "case law" to work with. Traditionally, at AfD, tabletop RPGs have been subjeCt to CREATIVE and video games to PRODUCT. Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Newslinger and Izno, that's what I found after a cursory search. ;) I will try a little more and see if I can come up with anything else. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Not for notability, and we need a better source if we can find one, but just noting some product info: [5] Another PBM designer was inspired by this game: [6] [7] Again, not for notability, but some designer's notes: [8] Not sure about this one: [9] Not sure what else I could search for at the moment. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Games should require the WP:GNG, end of story. As much as some people like to argue otherwise, taking to invoking SNGs just causes problems IMO. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. --Izno (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, only one of the above sources (the American Radio History review) pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator agreed that redirect to the list was better, the one delete voter above conceded that we have two RS's and is willing to concede to a redirect, but you're still going with delete? BOZ (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't see that concession.~~ I disagree with the concession. I've reviewed all of the sources presented and I don't think they're sufficient to get the article past WP:GNG. Galaxy II is a disambiguation, so not favouring a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 10:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would a move to Galaxy II (play-by-mail game) make a redirect more appropriate? BOZ (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of play-by-mail games, for now, but I really regard that as a stopgap. What we really need IMO is an article on play-by-mail games]] that is properly sourced and that will actually offer sufficient contextual in terms of the games and companies themselves that the reader can trace the emergence of computer-adjudicated PBM and PBEM from their analog antecedents. In this eventual article, the Galaxy II case will be quite important, I suspect, which is why I'd like to see the reference parked in the list, for now. The current PBM article is overly occupied by the player-facing aspects and the business model, while the way the games were hosted and run is given insufficient attention IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2018 (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.