Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegity


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pegity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Short version: I think this fails WP:GNG and should be redirected to gomoku (but I dislike stealthy deletion by redirecting). Long version: It's a weird one. A ~100 year old variant of gomoku. Currently is effectively unreferenced (BGG description is not a RS; I've added a RS for the 1925 introduction but as far as I can tell from the snippet view the source is a trivial, half-a-sentence, type of passing mention). BGG pictures clearly show a 16x16 grid. There is a 1958 study of people playing the game, which a) talks about a 24x24 grid (so looked at another mislabeled go-moku variant? and b) is not in-depth since it's about decision making, and the choice of the game is mostly trivial (the article does not discuss the game history etc. just has a short paragraph on the game description/rules ). A more recent passing mention to this game (and the above study ) just states "The objective of pegity, or gomoku, is to...". Likewise here "Rayner ' s analysis of pegity ( Gomoku ) ". I see no evidence that this gomoku variant merits its own article (and seriously, what could the article say outside that it's a Parkers Brother variant from 1925? Plus there is even the contradiction on whether the board of this variant is 16x16 or 24x24, sigh). Right now, however, pegity is not even mentioned in the target article (and there's nothing to merge anyway), but once this is redirected a sentence that '"evaluative problem solving" in the pegity variant of gomoku has been subject to academic analysis' or such could be added there, I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:14, 14 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  06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination makes it quite clear that there are sensible alternatives to deletion so why are we here? It is absurd to be creating new AfD pages which are longer than the original article when deletion is not an option.  Note that this game is not exactly the same as gomoku because it was also intended to be a simple peg board for making patterns and pictures.  And I fancy that the name is an allusion to the famous Dickens character.  As for notability, note that it is in the collection of the V&A – a very respectable museum.  If they think it's worthy of attention then who are we to disagree?  And note that they get the title right – it has an apostrophe. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * merge to gomoku, which doing so would probably have spared unnecessary drama. I found no reference which discussed it separately; they all take it as a synonym of gomoku. The claim it was designed with a secondary purpose is something I could not verify, and in any case I used to use my Battleship game as a kid to play Conway's Life, which the game designers surely didn't anticipate. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A well-known game in its time. We are unlikely to find reviews from that era -- the idea of reviewing games was not widespread in the 1920s and 30s. However, copies of the game from the 1920s and 30s are held in the collections of several prestigious museums as examples of typical childhood games of its era. I have added these to the article believing that these establish it as a subject of notability that stands separately from gomuku.Guinness323 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , " A well-known game in its time." Do we have a source for that? Most museum exhibits are not notable, they are just examples of wider concepts. We have sources that say this is just an example of gomuku. Gomoku is notable, and there is no evidence this edition of it is. The museums that exhibit it are likely to do so just because it's one of the better-preserved exhibits of gomoku. (also, note that VAMOC states they have over a million record pages like this one - do you think we need a million new articles...?). Some of the content you found and added would, however, be useful if merged to gomoku and I'd support rescuing it in such a fashion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To merge is to preserve, so I'm not seeing an argument advanced against doing that. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not against that, but it's not my position. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep sources in the article meet WP:N at this point. The proposed merge target is A) a different game with different rules (though this game is a subset of that) and B) this game has a history of its own with sources to document that.  A merger isn't crazy, but I don't think it would lead to better coverage of either topic. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I found an article in a 1963 issue of Sports Illustrated (of all places) by noted sportswriter Walter Bingham that spends three paragraphs on an overview of Peg'ity, suggested strategies and the designs included that young children can use. Further to my point about this being a notable article on its own.Guinness323 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Being featured in a museum does make something notable. So does the coverage people have found, such as the Sports Illustrated bit mentioned above.   D r e a m Focus  19:35, 18 February 2021 (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.