Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussia's Defiant Stand (board 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 delete. Wizardman 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Prussia's Defiant Stand (board game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability, no sources, both the designer and publisher are redlinked. Google search turns up nothing except for catalog listings and a review that looks like it was taken from the game's box: no indpendent, non-trivial coverage. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-Notable.-- RyRy5  Got something to say?   05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a reference. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N unless reliable sources are produced to establish notability. The "reference" added by Colonel Warden is just a copy of the marketing text here. Deor (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (by OP of the stub in question). I've no urge to fight to death, as I'm not familiar enough with the finest points of inclusion/deletion. I will, however, make these 4 points: a) I'm in no way affiliated with Worthington Games, the designer, or any other commercial board game venture. In fact, I haven't even played the game in question, but have drawn on my knowledge of 18th C History, board gaming, & the 7YW. b) The game was included in the course of slightly improving the references in the WikiP Seven Years' War article, where only 1 board game around the period was listed, though there are several good ones on the market. This seemed imbalanced, though I happen much to like the board game already listed (Friedrich, clearly more "notable"). So I chose to add an entry for the most recent game around the theme, which also seems the most non-derivative, aimed wider than at hard-core hex & counter wargamers, has been fairly well received by those who *have* tried it, & has the additional, widely valued benefit of being a 2-player-only game. c) The reference listed by Colonel Warden is not entirely trivial. Beneath the "copy of the marketing text" is a passably active user debate, including the following (user, not editor) review: A Solid Entry into the Board Game Arena d) The game is very recent (late 2007) - as is, to my knowledge, the publisher (hence its red ink) & it's not uncommon for good board games on very specific historical themes to grow their following slowly - if at all, but that's the risk to take - or not take . The choice is now yours, but I submit: let the game grow, as it's my best evaluation it will. To my own mind, encyclopaedia means encyclopaedic & as exhaustive as possible. --Nielspeterq (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't even assert notability. I suggest that you read the page linked in the preceding sentence and note that what's required is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." User reviews don't count as reliable sources. This game may be notable someday, but it isn't now. Deor (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources provided are ample for verification. Deeper coverage would be nice-to-have but it is not required .  My opinion stands. This article is a harmless and accurate stub and all we would achieve by deleting it is to make Wikipedia less encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had, naturally enough, already read & considered the notability criteria. I've made my 4 points above, & can now only second Colonel Warner's words: "a harmless & accurate stub". I described the game in 2 lines, & in no way attempted to sugar-coat or promote it. It's an interesting recent 7YW period board game, aimed more broadly than existing ones, by being neither hex & counter, nor multiplayer. It's now a Wikipedia decision whether we want to list, at most, a single example of media type (here board games) on any given important historical period. I can live with, if not exactly approve, either decision. --Nielspeterq (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy | T | 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to not asserting notability its also only one source, multiple non-trivial, independent sources are needed to establish notability. Deleting it would not make Wikipedia less encyclopedic, neither the source listed in this article nor anything I could find before I listed it on AfD establish why this game is notable. In response to your other comment, its not spam, and its not sugarcoated in anyway, if notability could be established then it would be a great stub. It isn't policy (yet), but there's a guideline currently under proposal for the notability of toys and it does give a good idea of what we're looking for in articles about games, see WP:TOYS. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for warning about that nascent proposal. That is just one editor's opinion.  It has no standing and fails WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not one editor's opinion, quite a few have contributed. How does it fail WP:CREEP? Reading the discussion associated with the proposal shows that it meets all three criteria listed not to be creep, and there have been a need for guidelines in this area for quite some time, according to the RPG WikiProject. Response to the proposal so far has been mostly positive. Granted, at the same time I didn't mean to come off as quoting it as policy, because it isn't yet, and might not be, but what was brainstormed into that proposal was built upon past AfD precedents was the point I was trying to make. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You ask how it fails WP:CREEP. It falls at the first hurdle because there is not a demonstrable problem which requires fixing.  The article we are discussing is a good example.  It fully satisfies our primary policies by being verifiable, NPOV and not original research.  It is not nonsense nor is it trivial.  There is a readership for this sort of thing and the material supports other articles which can be hyperlinked to to it as the author explains.  The material is currently slight but equally, it takes up little space - we have already consumed far more resources just debating the matter.  If this putative policy encourages more of these resource-hungry discussions then this will be a problem in itself - the cure will be worse than the disease.  Bureaucracy is like that - it feeds upon itself.  We need less of it, not more. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As much as I want to keep most things about games (in general), the only online sources seem to be fansites and/or press release-type of things and so forth. I can't seem to find significant reviews (that aren't self-published).   Of course online sources don't cover it all, and I would enjoy being proven wrong. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (by stub OP) A little against my will, I'm getting drawn further into this pretty inspiring discussion, as I'm coming to realize that this is about more than a puny stub, which I've already repeated you may remove if you so decide. Now: I'm only an intermittent WP editor, & had never before reflected on the wider implications of Creep, but normally, I'm in favour of more rather than less respect for rule. Here however, the rule in question (notability) comes up against a wider requirement. I'll avoid the E-word & simply write: representative & diverse referencing. Again, I created the stub because, in the Seven Years' War article, under "Cultural references", only a single, albeit excellent, 7YW board game was listed. (Remember what y'all are saying about "multiple" referencing? Yet there we're in a much higher-order article, & the damage is greater!) I know game(s), in that 7YW article, are not listed as a *source*, but as an *influence*. But were it about Sherlock Holmes &, say, movies influenced by his character, the writer would automatically aim at variety/diversity - & separate entries would also be found or made for every movie listed. See Sherlock Holmes in other media. Is the war that identifiably triggered the French Revolution less important than Holmes? Are games, a medium on the rise, really less notable than movies? I submit that there should be at least 2 references to a given medium (eg games) in the 7YW article, & that both should be blue-inked, hence the need for making a new entry. If people cannot live with Prussia's Defiant Stand (board game) being that entry, I ask them to find another, more notable & still current, 7YW board game entry. If the entry for that game doesn't yet exist, but the game is more notable, I'll write the new entry myself. I mean all this in earnest. People-- this isn't about existing N-criteria which, sure, are being stretched here. This is about paving a reasonably unobstructed road for alternate media, whenever diversity itself is being challenged within much higher-order topics. --Nielspeterq (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of diversity, or the SYW not being important enough, it is that the game (in it of itself) has not asserted notability. Notability is not inhereted from another subject, typically it needs to achieve that on its own. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nom here. The one source is insufficient for notability, in my opinion, and I can't find any other reliable sources. There may be a "readership" for this kind of subject, but isn't there also a "readership" for the non-notable MySpace bands that get A7'd left and right? As I see it, there is nothing in this game's article that asserts notability, even if the article is a stub that meets WP:NPOV (and WP:STUB, for that matter). I would also think that the general notability guidelines would cover pretty much everything, from board games to bands, from websites to brands of pop, from shopping malls to inventors — and as it stands, this game, plain and simple, does not meet the notability guidelines, as it's not received any coverage in reliable sources (at least none that I can see). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could write a harmless and accurate article about myself, but that wouldn't be worth keeping either (sigh). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even in the conext of board-gaming, this game is not notable.  Couldn't locate any reviews or other sources either online or in my print sources. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (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.