Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government simulation (2nd nomination)

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. Cbrown1023 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government simulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Government Simulation (2 nomination) `'mikka 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although nominated once before, that AfD hardly addressed the issues of what's wrong with this article. While it may be so that "this article serves as an excellent guide to a subject matter that is a vibrant community on the internet" or "the history of govsims is an intriguing one", the article on vibrant internet community Yay Hooray was deleted, and so would an article on the intriguing story on how my parents met be. Basically, it constitutes Wikipedia:Original research and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete. The original AfD certainly reached a clear consensus to keep, but the article is almost completely unsourced, and thus fails WP:V. I've marked the article up with a bunch of citation request templates in places where I thought source references would be particularly useful. If over the course of this AfD, those get filled in with citations to reliable sources, then the article deserves to be kept. In it's current state, it does not. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question is, how is it notable? And sure, the last AfD reached a quite broad consensus - however, no "valid" (according to my POV, that is) arguments were put forth. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a somewhat more slippery concept than verifiability. In any case, I don't know how it is notable, just like I don't know if it is verifiable. That's why I put the {{fact}} tags all over the article; to prompt people to supply the citations which will allow me to verify. I suspect that if they do that, they will also show that it is notable. Or not. But I'm willing to be patient and see what happens. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to contribute some more information on this subject once the AfD is complete. The most immediate example of the category that comes to mind is the relatively-famous Balance of Power (computer game) (famous at least to those of us who might consider ourselves gaming historians) which defined the early history of this genre. I have no doubt that it's possible to come up with quite a bit more. Tarinth 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Nation-simulation game. --- RockMFR 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it should be noted that Nation-simulation game has been nominated for deletion (yes, also by me). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this article title seems more generic and encompassing than Nation-simulation game. The fact that this category of game/simulation exists is self-evident, and I think there's a good opportunity to improve this article over time and make it good (I have a few ideas on things that could be added, but I'll wait to see which article remains before investing the effort). Tarinth 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is indeed self-evident that it exists. So is my existence, but there's no Jobjörn Folkesson. The question is, is it notable? And verifiable? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability should be a no-brainer given the large number of computer game magazine articles that we should be able to come up with, and notability is merely a reflection of such articles existance. I'd say give the article time to improve, and if there's no useful sources in a few months we could revisit this. Tarinth 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. Find ONE article published in a reputable computer game magazine and I'll change my mind. You can be sure we have tried before though - you might want to look through the already finished AfDs. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• del nn coinage. `'mikka 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't about a neologism, it is simply a generic term for a reasonably obvious category of videogame that has existed for about as long as computers have existed. While the thing to call this category might be up for debate, the content itself and fact of its existance isn't. Tarinth 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has it? The article traces the thing back to mid-1990s, it seems. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Clearly the article can be improved (see Balance of Power, an 80's game, as I mentioned above; and we can find earlier examples amongst Mainframe-based games). I have no doubt that the category may have originally been created by someone who wanted to promote their own less-notable titles, but it's a real category. When the Sword of AfDocles isn't hanging over the article anymore I'll see about bringing those subjects in, or just make a new and better article if it does get deleted. But I think it should just stay for now. Tarinth 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Additional findings: here are a couple more articles on the genre:

This article uses the term "international relations simulations" http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027%28198706%2931%3A2%3C333%3AAEOT%22O%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&size=LARGE

IGN called "Balance of Power" a "Cold War simulation" http://pc.ign.com/articles/090/090970p1.html

I know I'm using this one particular game a bunch, because it is probably one of the earliest (and most notable) within the genre, but I don't think it will be hard to expand it with further examples once the article is given an opportunity to grow. Here's another more recent example that has gotten a number of reviews: "Democracy", a political simulation: http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2005/12/democracy-review.html

• Keep. The article needs work, but there's plenty of reliable sources that talk about this type of game. Even though they don't use the term, I've found articles from the San Fracisco Chronicle and New York Times that talk about them (but if this is a neologism debate, I suppose that's irrelevant). If you want (admittedly less reliable) sources that use the term "political sim", you can look to IGN (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/083/083729p1.html). Sorry, I have no knack for brevity. Mikeliveshere 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the reliable sources don't use the term then this is a neologism. Also delete for original research. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a burden to prove the article's name or the article's content is in reliable sources? Mikeliveshere 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merged article on all online gaming. List as a genre. Refuse individual sites right to advertise to prevent page becoming farcical.

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.