Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fields of Action

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 no consensus. No change since last relist, which I agree with. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Action

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced board game article, BGG has no reviews and very few forum posts about this niche product. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD was removed by User:Andrew Davidson with no useful rationale, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to redirect and maybe merge a sentence to Lines of Action. Hobit (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded this article with information from several sources.Guinness323 (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BGG is a community wiki/review site and so not a RS. IGGamecenter is someone's personal project, not a RS. The last source cited is a commercial page that attributes stuff like game description to BGG. Sorry, but this is still zero RS and zero notability. There is a bit about the game's history but what is the RS for that? If an RS can be found, a redirect and merge to Lines of Action could be carried out. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323, otherwise merge as suggested by Hobit per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sackson is a well-respected designer and so their games will naturally attract coverage. This case is no exception and it's easy to find such coverage in sources such as Games Magazine's 2nd Big Book of Games and Schmittberger's New Rules for Classic Games. The topic therefore passes WP:GNG and we should follow the usual policies of WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well respected according to whom? And given your track record of providing google hits as "coverage", please provide links to the sources you cite and analysis (confirm that the topic is discussed in a way that pases Wikipedia:SIGCOV if you'd like us to take your claim of coverage seriously. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the Strong National Museum of Play says, "Sackson (1920–2002) is revered among inventors, collectors, and serious players for his lifelong dedication to games and the gaming world." If Piotrus not aware of this background, then they have no business making drive-by prods – see WP:BEFORE WP:PRODNOM. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which may make him notable but does not make his creations notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Still waiting for your discussion of your google hits finding and how they meet SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nominator's job to make a case for action. Per WP:BEFORE, this includes a detailed search using tools such as Google Books. If a !voter does some of this work which the nominator has failed to do, the nominator has no right to demand more. See WP:CHOICE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:SAUCE, &c. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps Redirect somewhere. There is no claim of significance (WP:GNG) in the article, and the sources are either unreliable or off-topic --> about the designer or his prequel game, for example. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sid Sackson, where it is already included under his list of designed games. As already mentioned by GizzyCatBella, there is no actual claim of notability in the article. In addition, none of the introduced sources actually show any indication of notability either, on top of most of them not being from reliable sources. They are merely information on its publication history and/or a listing of its rules. There is no actual coverage or discussion of the game in them that would pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Sackson is a major designer, and there is enough coverageJackattack1597 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see the coverage? We don't have a single, reliable source that discusses this topic, do we? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Schmittberger source seems to be good, but as a listing of many games it seems to be rather brief, and likely has little more than the rules themselves. A web search returns nothing of worth aside from that source, and nothing else really demonstrates notability. Avilich (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sid Sackson per WP:ATD. Topic fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lines of Action. The Schmittberger source confirms that Sackson's creation was inspired by this game so I don't know why Piotrus is disputing the lack of reliable sources for that fact. Apparently he is writing off the source without reading it, which is ironic as he is criticising another contributor here for listing sources without reading them. SpinningSpark 17:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone link Schmittberger source in a readable format? Right now I can't access it on Google Books. If Keep voters can't be bothered to ensure that their "best" sources are accessible for verification by others, it can be helped their "arguments" won't be well respected or influntial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my problem, or anyone elses, that you can't read the source and we don't reject reliable sources because they are not available online. To help you out, the book covers the topic over nearly two pages. On the fact under discussion it says "[Sackson] was inspired by Claude Souci's outstanding game Lines of Action". SpinningSpark 11:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link those two pages, or are you using a physical copy? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I borrowed it from IA. SpinningSpark 12:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, Congrats, I gave up on its library long ago, each time I tried to borrow anything was giving me some 'limit exceeded' error or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to give GNG with a WP:BEFORE yielding nothing significant or reliable. I can see usual arguments from the rescue squadron given above which do not meet policy or guidelines (inc. citing a source that doesn't mention the topic of this article). Keep arguments boil down to WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and that notability is inherited which I hope the closer disregards. I would also support a redirect. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: Why do you not think a merge of this article would be appropriate? SpinningSpark 11:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there would be no issue with any well sourced information being merged over but for something with so little notability I don’t think it’s too much of a problem. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on second thoughts. The two pages in Schmittberger, New Rules for Classic Games and the full page in Games Magazine Presents the 2nd Giant Book of Games (also only in snippet on gbooks, but I can confirm it has a full page) are enough to meet GNG. Not fantastic, but enough. SpinningSpark 12:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur those are likely to pass SIGCOV. But do they contain anything besides a history blurb and rules? I am concerned whether a simple rules reprint in two independent sources should suffice to make a game notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There does not seem to be a strong delete consensus, should the article be kept or redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.