Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton (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The result was AFD withdrawn (keep). When nominated, the article was in no shape to be kept as a usable article, with no verifiable sources and little assertion of notability. However, the article has since been improved and now includes reliable sources, the contents of which go some way to asserting notability. Therefore, I have decided to withdraw the nomination as nothing will be gained from deleting this article at this point. No prejudice against relisting in future if others feel the article still doesn't meet notability guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Milton (game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD contested. NN game with no sources. Considered speedy nom for promotional but decided to AFD instead. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Added source (US Patent), added statement regarding notability of game (first electronic talking game that allowed two players to play against each other), removed reference to collectible/rarity status of game so as not to appear promotional OhRatts —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find a thing, which really shocks me. Yes it's old, but there should be something in a book.  Best I can find are passing references.  This isn't a delete !vote as I really do find it hard to believe there are no sources, but I certainly can't suggest keeping at this point. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   express 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there are three complications involved in finding sources for this. First, it's hard to find sources for things oriented to children since such things are often below the radar of the (adult) folks who review things. Second, when such an item probably reached its peak of popularity before the internet-era such as this. Third and most difficult is the fact that this game's name is so simple and similar to the brand name, making an enormous number of false positives that literally bury any internet sources that exist.
 * Nonetheless, I have found a source that strongly suggests that this game was rather technologically innovative and popular in its time in two different Popular Mechanics and . There also a rather lengthly article, titled "Squeezing Milton's voice into memory," from Electronics about the technology in this game. We can only see in snippet view, but it's possible to read the whole thing if you're patient with the snippet system (learned quite a few tricks as an rescuer). Here are the first four consecutive snippet pieces if anybody cares to read:    . I'll quote some of that below:

""To encode the speech in the Milton game, the waveforms were sampled and the samples digitized. Then to minimize the problem of synthesizing fluent speech, segments of speech that would occur in the game in only one context—as in a question, for example— were sampled in that context. Those occurring in more than one context were sampled in that context. Those occurring in more than one context were sampled in isolation. Great care was taken to arrange the rhythm and intonation of the game's vocabulary, so that segments of speech occurring in different contexts would sound natural in every instance. Proper intonation and rhythm are critical for making...""


 * I'd include more, but that'd tread onto the copyright. Either way, there is enough information to write an encyclopedic article. After I read the rest of the article, I'll add a "Technology" section soon. — Code Hydro  22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The Popular Mechanics mention proves notability.  D r e a m Focus  22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have reorganized and wikified this article and used the sources I found (as noted above) to write most of the "Voice and technology" section starting with "At the time, electronics capable of speech were a novelty..." There's still some work to be done, but I think this first round of edits has demonstrated that we can make this encyclopedic and worth keeping. I'd also like to point out that this is the very first (and only) article created by User:OhRatts, so WP:DONTBITE. — Code Hydro  23:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an unfair accusation of bad faith. It didn't matter who wrote it, the article as it was, as Hobit said, was not conducive to "keeping at (that) point". I'd have PRODded/AFD'd it either way. That said, enough work has been done on the article to convince me the article should be kept and I am withdrawing the AFD. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Really nice job CodeHydro. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Comment from article's primary author) Just wanted to say thank you to CodeHydro for the great editing and additional sources and to everyone else for the support! OhRatts (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2010 (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.