Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force (game)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Air Force (game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't find evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: This article has no sources, lacks notability, and looks to be something straight out of an advertisement. It fails across the board. See WP:NOT and WP:OR. Johnny338 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article lacks sources. See WP:V. Jimqode (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:N is a bit of a stretch to prove, but the above !votes are wrong--remember we delete things based on sources existing, not being in the article. A web search shows sources, including 11 pieces in The General (which is not independent, but is a very strong indication this saw coverage in 3rd party magazines from the time).  In any case, there is no case for deletion as there is an obvious redirect target.  Hobit (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done some looking and only found one source, and it's not the best . I'm certain there would be reviews, but they would be in paper form from 30 years ago, so finding them is nearly impossible. Hobit (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Hobit, do you have links to your research and can you please add them to the article? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Boleyn, they show up on a search for 'Avalon Air Force' (no quotes) which I assume you did before sending it to AfD. But all links can be found at http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3608/air-force. I don't have access to the magazines, so I can't add references (I can only see titles and authors).  Hobit (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Without actually having read any reliable sources, I really don't think you can say your research has proved notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I said it's a stretch to prove. Rather there are 11 articles on the subject.  Most, if not all, clearly meet all the parts of WP:N other than independence.  But I think it provides a great likelihood that there are independent sources our there (not to mention while the publisher isn't independent, the authors in many cases are). But arguments like not meeting WP:V are clearly wrong--or just referring to the current state of the article, which isn't generally all that relevant at AfD.  Hobit (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete For those who are not familiar with the genre, the source cited, The General, was the game publisher's house organ.  Articles appearing there are a very strong indication of nothing other than AH marketing their own products.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it at the time, but looking over old issues, 11 articles on one game seems fairly rare. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I tried to find sources for this, the only things I can find are user-generated board game clubs and other similar sites. Going through 15 pages of Google, Bing, and Yahoo search results I couldn't find anything relevant to point out the notability of this board game.  As such the article clearly falls under WP:OR and fails WP:N.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:03, 5 June 2014 (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.