Mikhail Gorbachev

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration (game) (edit | 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)

A copy and paste move from AfC. I didn't PROD for two reasons. One reason, it'll inevitably be reversed by the draft/article creator. Another reason is that it's unreliably sourced, and unfortunately, it's difficult to find sources via a search engine. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There was a terrible error with the swap tool. This article has been draftified. However in the process of deleting this as a redirect, I restored the contents inorder to move without leaving a redirect, but found myself swapping pages instead of moving. But since the editor bypassed AFC to create this drat, I am not opposed to delete. It doesn't meet WP:NGAME. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasoning includes the following points:

A) it is suggested that the article is unreliably sourced. Yet included are 10 citations from a variety of online sources, including the respected BBG (‘board game geek’) and ‘shut up & sit down’, which are themselves referenced in their own Wikipedia articles. Additionally, there is a citation from an original review in the 1970s physically published magazine ‘Games & Puzzles’ B) this compares favourably with other live articles describing other board games listed on the Waddington's Wikipedia entry, such as the one for ‘Formula One’ (which was used as a template to create this article), which only has 6 citations. C) it is also surmised that this subject is not ‘notable’, and yet it is listed on the Waddington’s Wikipedia entry in the list of notable games, along with other board games which have their own articles including ‘formula One’. By implication, if this well researched and cited article is not deemed suitable, it implies that many other articles on similar games need reviewing, along with the notable games list. I consider it a crime against knowledge sharing that such an extensive deletion of articles might be undertaken D) it is stated that few entries are found when googling this subject matter. That is hardly surprising given that the subject of the article is a game that was first published in 1967 and went out of print during the 1970s, way before the internet was created. Still, the game was very popular during its time, selling in the many thousands, as can be judged by observing the number of copies currently for sale on auction sites such as eBay and Amazon, indicating the continued interest. There is also a YouTube review of the game which is only 9 months old, showing the continued interest, implying a Wikipedia entry would be of assistance E) it is incorrectly assessed that this is a computer video game. This mistake leads to the belief that it is not notable, since no modern details exist. Whereas the reality is that this is a traditional board game, recognised by families of the 1970s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartiperson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will have to see what else can be found, but the review in Games & Puzzles [1] is a legit WP:RS. BOZ (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have weeded out the non-RS sources, and re-organized it to reflect the information given in the remaining RS sources. Currently those are a contemporaneous review in Games & Puzzles, a retrospective review on the editorially-independent review site Shut Up & Sit Down and a recent article about the game published by the Museum of Games and Gaming (Preston, UK). I believe this is enough to prove notability, and I am sure there are further reviews and articles about this game that have not come to light yet because of the age of the game (1970s). Guinness323 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guinness323, and we might also consider this a brief Reich Der Spiele review. BOZ (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think this is also a good part of AFD, and I am satisfied with the two reliable sources presented above, hence my consideration. Courtesy pinging nominator, @I dream of horses.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:29, 1 October 2024 (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.