Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats


 * 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 merge to Sky Galleons of Mars. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Cloudships & Gunboats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is sourced to a single reference, a WP:ROUTINE product review. A BEFORE on JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, and newspapers.com finds no further WP:RS. Due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in RS, article fails the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge and Redirect (to Sky Galleons of Mars) In addition to the RS Space Gamer review, this miniatures game was also reviewed in independent source Future Wars (Issue 19) and in Miniature Wargames (Issue 409), and also discussed in Storytelling in the Modern Board Game: Narrative Trends from the late 1960s to today. Need I go on? GNG clearly met. Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am changing my !vote to Merge and Redirect to Sky Galleons of Mars because, although two RS are sufficient to meet the GNG, and others exist, I see clear advantages to consolidating the Space:1889 miniatures games in one place. If the content were to grow to support a standalone article, the split should be done only with quality sources for each article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just checked these and they appear to be incidental mentions in a single sentence that don't amount to WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely some mistake, Chetsford. The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources. None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're looking at different things, but that's not what I'm seeing. Sorry. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to confine yourself to sources you can actually see. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the AN thread you started, I have misread the mention in question and it was apparently about a different game. I apologize for my error. It appears, in fact, there are no mentions of any kind - either incidental or substantial - in the sources you cited. Based on that, I reaffirm my delete nomination. Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I noted on the Administrators Noticeboard, this is a false statement on a factual matter, which Chetsford really ought to retract. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to your post. I disagree with its conclusion. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you disagree with former administrator Fram's conclusion that one of the three references I found reviews the game at length, and another mentions it in passing? If so, on what grounds? Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you're Fram's sockpuppet then, no, my statement that I disagree with Newimpartial's conclusion does not mean I disagree with Fram's conclusion. I haven't read Fram's conclusion and am unlikely to do so. I've made my case for deletion to the extent I choose to make it. Others can agree or disagree as they see fit. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you change your !vote, Chetsford. I was just giving you an opportunity to retract your erroneous statement, It appears, in fact, there are no mentions of any kind - either incidental or substantial - in the sources you cited, just as I have retracted the citation I gave that was in fact a review of another game. All editors are expected to remain factual in their AfD comments, Administrators perhaps doubly so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify - The related article Sky Galleons of Mars shows where this article could go. I am not entirely sure that either is truly notable, but I think that Sky Galleons of Mars makes the case that both could be. Yet this one is no more than a few lines of stub. It is not ready yet for mainspace, and it may be that there is no more that can be said. This can be worked out in draft space. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I for one have no problem with a Merge and Redirect until the article is improved, and it could be made an additional section of the Sky Galleons article unless Chetsford sends that one to AfD as well. But I don't see the advantage of draftifying. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Sky Galleons of Mars. All the supplements should be part of the same article, and considered as parts of the main board game, which is more notable when it and the supplements are taken as a whole. To be clear, there does seem to be a bit of coverage for this supplement, but I feel combining articles makes more sense in this case. —Torchiest talkedits 04:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge to Sky Galleons of Mars per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to main game article as there are not sufficient reviews of the game supplement to justify stand alone entry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:31, 19 February 2020 (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.