Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games Research Inc


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Games Research Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). To expand, BEFORE shows a bunch of mentions in passing, usually in the context of one of the games it published (not designed), which generally merits an attribution ("blah blah blah game x published by this company"). Those are trivial/in passing mentions, and I saw nothing to suggest the company was significant. It existed for ~2 decades, did what companies do, then went out of business. The best source I've found is "Diplomacy is published by Games Research Inc., a Boston outfit that turns out challenging diversions". Nothing encyclopedic here. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES etc. PS. I will note that they were the second publisher of Diplomacy (game) (first edition was self-published), but that trivia in itself cannot make the company notable per WP:NOTINHERITED, unless we can find some in-depth coverage that would discuss the importance of the company in the context of the development of this game (which I looked for and failed to find). A mention of the company in the page for the Diplomacy game is sufficient (and it is already there, I've added a reference). I am not sure if a redirect is warranted, since the company published more than a single game, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage   The article profiles Games Research. It notes that the company's president is John Moot and that the company "markets and sells games of a somewhat intellectual cast". The article notes that the company's inaugural game was "Convention", which Homer D. Babbidge Jr., President Eisenhower's Undersecretary of Health, Education and Welfare, had created. The game was published in 1960 and its aim was to have the players secure over 50% of the fictional political convention's delegates. The next game the company released was "Diplomacy", which was created by Allan Calhamer. The most recent game that would be published soon was "What's That on My Head?" The company's players and members were: John T. Noonan Jr., who edited the National Law Forum and was an instructor at Notre Dame University; John Mansfield, a Harvard Law School professor; Hartley Rogers Jr., an MIT math professor; and Nathaniel Young Jr., a Boston lawyer.   The article notes: "The Anatomy of Betrayal. One uncompromisingly eggheaded game-maker is a four-year-old partnership of four Harvardmen and an interloper from Yale -- all with other fulltime jobs -- who call themselves Games Research, Inc. Their first game was Convention!, which can be played by two to seven players, each of whom is trying to win the nomination for President of the U.S. Uncommitted delegates, ballots, caucuses, bandwagon sentiment and demonstrations all play a part, with the smoke-filled room a policy of utter desperation. ... Second -- and most sophisticated -- product of Games Research is Diplomacy. ... [discussion of Diplomacy] ... Newest Games Research brain game was out last week with the double-take title: What's That on My Head? Each player wears a crownlike card holder on his head, into which an opponent inserts three lettered cards without letting the wearer see them (mirrors must be covered before the game begins). ... [discussion of What's That on My Head?]"  Martin, Jane. (1970-11-21). "Games Today Are Complex, Relevant, X-Rated" (pages 1, 2), and 3. The Gazette. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via Newspapers.com. The article notes that John R. Moot is the president of Games Research. The article notes: "New companies have formed to meet the demand for adult games. Games Research is one. Moot heads a four-year-old partnership of one Yale and four Harvard men who all have other fulltime jobs." The article lists the company's published games: Convention!, Insight, Diplomacy, and What's That on My Head? (a logic game). The article notes that the president and other employees of Game Research "are involved in test playing the games". </li> </ol> Additional sources that are passing mentions <ol> <li> The article notes: "In 1959, after Diplomacy was rejected by several game publishers, Mr. Calhamer had 500 copies produced at his own expense, selling them by mail for $6.95 apiece. It was acquired shortly afterward by Games Research and has since passed through many corporate hands, including those of Avalon Hill and Hasbro." </li> <li> The article notes: "'Diplomacy' appeared in 1959, copyrighted by Calhamer. Games Research Inc., the present distributor, picked it up a year or two later." </li> <li> The article notes: "Steadily mounting sales are also reported for an older peace game, 'Diplomacy,' which was first put out by Games Research Inc. of Boston about 10 years ago." </li> <li> The article notes: "Among the directors of Games Research Inc., which owns Diplomacy, are a Harvard law professor, an M.I.T. mathematics associate professor and a Harvard-educated engineer named John Moot." </li> <li> The article notes: "Adults account for some 60% of those who play Diplomacy, a politico-military game brought out in 1960 by Games Research, Inc., a Cambridge, Mass., concern set up specifically to market adult-oriented games." The article notes that John R. Moot is the president of Games Research. The article notes that "sales of such relatively new games as Diplomacy are rising". </li> <li> The article notes: "First cousin to the war games is Diplomacy, by Games Research. Because Diplomacy has earned a reputation as a classic in the adult game field, Games Research doesn't promote it at all and doesn't promote it at all and still sells 15,000 copies per year, which retail for $8.95. </li> <li> The article notes: "Diplomacy is published by Games Research Inc., a Boston outfit that turns out challenging diversions." The articles notes that the Games Research president is John Moot. </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Games Research to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * , Can you double-check the link to your source 1? Instead of an article about GRI I get one about Avalon Hill titled "Games for Grownups...". I also don't think that the few sentences in sources 2 and 3 are 'in-depth coverage', but I appreciate you quoting all the relevant information. I think some of the resources you found may be useful to expand articles about the game Diplomacy and its designer. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the link to The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to Diplomacy. Cunard found a ton more than I did, but it all appears to be short mentions, primarily in the context of Diplomacy.  Those sources would be great in the Diplomacy article. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wrote a reply to Cunard, asking for more information and indicating I didn't see anything but passing references and asking what he liked. As I got ready to save it, I realized that I somehow had missed the entire "significant coverage" section. Entirely my fault.  Those 3 sources appear to have enough to meet WP:N pretty easily. I should know better than to doubt Cunard about things like this... Hobit (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent evidence provided by Cunard above. Our numerous policies clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate and include WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Diplomacy- which seems to be its main contribution- and its notable only for its connection to that game. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Based on my review of the sources, I oppose a merge to Diplomacy (game). The company has been profiled in The New York Times and Time. The New York Times profile discusses the company's gamemakers and three of the company's games: "Convention", "Diplomacy", and "What's That on My Head?" It spends several paragraphs discussing how "What's That on My Head?" is played. The Time article profiles the company through discussing their gamemakers and the company's three games: "Convention", "Diplomacy", and "What's That on My Head?". It would be undue weight to cover information about the company's other two games ("Convention" and ""What's That on My Head?") and the company's gamemakers in Diplomacy (game). Cunard (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the 3 identified significant sources are enough to show that this company was (and therefore still is, as far as we are concerned) notable Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Diplomacy (game) as ATD. According to the latest RfC, at WP:N, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP for determining whether references meet the criteria for establishing notability. It is a stricter guideline that vanilla GNG. Cunard above links to reference and says they meet GNG. This isn't the appropriate guideline. Looking through the lens of NCORP, the references fail the criteria. There are three references marked as "Significant". The first from the New York Times is *entirely* based on an interview with the president of Games Research and information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. I believe this links to the second reference based on the extract shown by Cunard above. It contains no in-depth information on the company and also appears to be entirely based on information and quotations provided by the president of the company as part of a promotion of their "newest" game "What's That on My Head?". This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The third reference suffers from the same problems, it is entirely based on an interview with the president of the company and information provided by the company. Fails WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate *any* references which meet the criteria, this topic fails NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for the detailed review. I'll also note that per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews in general are considered to be problematic as sources. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having problems seeing how you can know the NYT article comes solely from the company. Could you explain?  Hobit (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think User:HighKing wrote that. They said (in my understanding) the article is based primarily on an interview with the company's staff, which takes us to the problems discussed in the essay linked above. (Yes, it's an essay, but in my AfD experience interviews are seen as low-tier sources - and if this is the best we have, well...). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hobit, I'm puzzled that someone would question that the NYT article is anything other than one *entirely* based on an interview with John Moot. Every fact-drop is either preceded or followed by a supporting comment or an anecdotal comment either from or about Moot. This is "echo chamber" reporting and there is nothing I can see to suggest the article contains any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation or fact checking attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Even with a generous eye towards ORGIND, once you strip out any quotes or information attributable to Moot or the company, we're left with ... very little and certainly not enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH since the remaining information simply describes the "object" of various games and nothing about the company. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I got the strong sense the author was familiar with two of the games. And it does describe the workings of the company (though those parts were clearly taken from an interview).  I have no problem at all with the article as counting toward WP:N, though I understand your objections. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You agree that the information which relates to the company clearly came from an interview. The topic of this article is the company, not the products. You say that you get a sense the interviewer was familiar with the games but that not relevant for determining notability of the company. You don't say whether, or on what basis, this article meets ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH for the purposes of establishing notability though, which is the critical point to overcome. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit I do a lot less with corporations than almost anything else here. But I think the WP:N bar is the right bar for a company that is this old and went out of business so long ago.  Just like for biographies of folks from the 1930s we might have lower expectations than we do for a living person, I think WP:N, rather than corp/org is the right bar.  We can argue SNGs vs GNG all day, but I'm generally happy with the GNG bar, especially for something like this. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Cunard's sourcing demonstrated here. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.