Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poleconomy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Poleconomy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Only sources are Board Game Geek (editable by users, not a reliable source), the company site and a site trying to sell copies of the game. Need multiple independent and reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage in a way demonstrating actual notability to have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete no well-sourced indication of notability--is the official web site a Tripod site? Article has been improved but many of the added sources seem to be trivial, passing mentions (e.g. ref 8), at odds with the claims being made for this game. JJL (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A quick search soon establishes that numerous sources exist and so WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mere mentions do not notability make. And if you'd stop whining about WP:BEFORE all th time and actually acquaint yourself with our notability policies you might make an informed comment on an AFD once in a while. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  weak keep provides some details.   looks like a significant passing mention but I can't see it. Hobit (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. I don't have access to the paper sources now listed in the article, but if correct this is way over the top for notability. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, no mention in any reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As my comment above shows, this is plainly not true. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a mainstay of '80s family homes in NZ... there were also international variants - all involving many important players (Ford/IBM et al) of the time. I'm looking around for more references... difficult for an 80s product . --Boomshanka (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this isn't cruft for some "new" game, as mentioned, this game ranked behind Monopoly and Risk in 80s households in Canada and NZ. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it was a popular game for quite some time. As the tripod ite points out, worldwide sales are around 1.5 million. There also appear to be several good independent sources for references. Surely this would meet notability levels. Grutness...wha?  22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment but does the Tripod site meet WP:RS? JJL (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure - but the others listed definitely do. Grutness...wha?  06:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources already cited are enough to demonstrate notability. Its popularity in New Zealand alone would be enough; I wasn't aware of all its international success. -- Avenue (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above; many, many households had this game in New Zealand. Many probably still do.  I likely have a copy in storage. -- Septicman
 * Keep As Boomshanka says, difficult to find references for 80s games, but I think it meets the criteria for notability. I can cite a further two articles, but unfortunately they're not available on the web (unless you have access to a subscription database like Newztext). Poleconomy is mentioned in the article "Old games to remember" (by Dave Legget, Waikato Times Edition 1, Page 12, 5 November 2008) and the main topic of: "Neo-liberal ideas still dominate political agenda" (by Ben Thomas and David Young, National Business Review, 2 March 2007). Happy to provide text versions for those who want to verify. Alphamatrix (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThe Fraser Institute marketed the game in 80's as per this link. Media:http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/challenging_perceptions.pdf User:Eldemaer (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems reasonable. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the better sources is Stickels (1994) in BRW, which is now cited correctly in the article. I haven't seen the article but here's an abstract for it: "Reports on the success of entrepreneur Bruce Hatherley's board game called Poleconomy. Fascination of Hatherley on board games as he was growing up in New Zealand; Circumstances which led him to invent Poleconomy; Game instructions of the board game." Nurg (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep this is one of those pre-internet entities for which sourcing might be a tad tricky to find. We need to avoid systemic bias by addressing this type of thing. I recall seeing this game alot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 May 2009 (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.