Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire board wargame


 * 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. L Faraone  00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Solitaire board wargame

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. Prod concern was: ''Unreferenced, full of original research. Written in 2005 when standards were different. Would need complete rewrite to bring up to modern standards; no sources found. Creator appears to have abandoned his account and nobody else maintaining the article, so no point adding maintenance tags, hence straight to prod. Prod was declined with: First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. There's been a great deal written on games.'' As stated in the prod, I have looked for sources and found nothing I think suitable as the basis of an article. Can anyone else do better? — S Marshall T/C 08:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand? The two quotations from The General aren't about solitaire board wargames as a topic. They're about specific games. The lack of sources about the topic is what I've been banging on about since the start of this conversation.— S Marshall T/C 09:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep The topic is notable. It only takes seconds to find a source such as War and Games which has pointers to more sources.  In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion.  Consider one-player game, for example, which is currently pathetic.  Warden (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't notable. What I said was that I can't find sources suitable as the basis of an article.  I can certainly find sources for "Solitaire wargame".  I can certainly find sources for "Board wargame".  I can certainly find the source you've already found for "Two player board wargame played solitaire".  But none of these things are the topic of the article.  This article is about solitaire board wargames, which is a degree of granularity too far.  There are less than half a dozen examples of actual solitaire board wargames, and only two that matter: B-17, Queen of the Skies and Ambush!.  I'd be very impressed if you can find a source that treats them as a topic, Warden.— S Marshall  T/C 21:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Less than six? The article lists more than that and it is not complete.  As for another source, try the The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming by Nicholas Palmer, ISBN 978-0070481909, do you mean? I happen to have a copy on my bookshelves, and I can assure you that it contains nothing whatsoever on the subject.  (This is probably because the only edition of the book was compiled in 1977 and nobody produced a commercial solitaire board wargame until 1983.)  Or is there some other Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming of which I'm unaware?— S Marshall  T/C 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the one and I have a copy too. It specifically lists games of this sort and discusses the comparative merits of the solitaire games Wolfpack and Operation Olympic, for example — both published in 1974. Your comments indicate that you have some idiosyncratic conception of the topic.  Are you perhaps suggesting a fussy distinction between map games and board games, purely based upon the thickness of the playing surface?  This is not a normal definition — it would be as if a paperback were not considered to be a book.  Warden (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my copy both of them are described as "Solitaire games", which obviously in context means "Solitaire wargames". As I said above: I can certainly find sources for "Solitaire wargame".  I can certainly find sources for "Board wargame"... but none of these things are the topic of the article.  This article is about solitaire board wargames, which is a degree of granularity too far. I am, indeed, making that "fussy" distinction.  :) Wikipedia doesn't actually have an article called Solitaire wargame, but this isn't a good basis for developing one, because it contains no sources and would need to be rewritten from scratch to cover computer games, miniatures games, and a passing mention of board wargames based on the said source.— S Marshall  T/C 08:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article quotes from multiple sources, which it specifies exactly. That's three different factual errors so far.  You're out! Warden (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil :-)... I'm the author of the Comprehensive Guide and think the article is useful. I'm no kind of expert on Wikipedia inclusion rules, so will just offer an opinion that solitaire board games are an important branch of the genre. The article could however reasonably be extended - for instance, Fall of Rome (SPI) was one of the most successful board wargame designs, published as far back as 1973, see http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8326/the-fall-of-rome. I'm puzzled by the assertion that nobody produced a commercial board wargame before 1983 Nickdpalmer (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. :)  Can you recommend any published sources that discuss solitaire board wargames as a subject?  I don't mean individual games, I mean the topic area. What we're trying to come up with is a tree of articles that becomes increasingly specific.  So in species we have arthropod, arachnid, spider, tarantula, and Goliath birdeater.  In board/hex-and-chit wargames, I think Warden and I would agree that we should have game, wargame, board wargame, solitaire wargame and Ambush!.  What we're disagreeing about is whether solitaire board wargame fits into that tree, which in turn depends on whether there's anything to say about solitaire board wargames that doesn't belong in board wargame or solitaire wargame instead.  That's why we're focusing on sources: we want to know if there are sources specifically about solitaire board wargames that we can examine. You may have noticed that solitaire wargame is a redlink, meaning nobody has written that article.  I think Warden and I would both welcome your advice on what should go in there!  Warden is of the view that the content of solitaire board wargame can be incorporated into that article; I'd prefer to start from scratch.— S Marshall  T/C 12:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear about my position, I would certainly agree that there's a lot more to be done here. I just don't think that deletion would be helpful and, as usual, point to our editing policies: WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.  Note that I created the article multiplayer game about the other end of the spectrum and so have some experience of working upon these classifications.  The main difficulty nowadays seems to be getting any recognition of a game genre which isn't computerised.  We grognards should stick together in the face of the horde of PC/console/app videogames.  Warden (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Moves magazine had an article on "Solitaire Wargaming" in its very first issue, as did Panzer Digest issue 5, and Panzerschreck Magazine issue 13. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudos for finding those references. I'll check my stacks for those ... Warden (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now if only I could get the S&T issues SPI owed me when it went belly up, I'd be a happy camper. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The User:Colonel has almost always been right when he thinks it possible to expand an article on a subject, & it looks like there are sources for this topic also.  DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 25 May 2013 (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.