Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovian Chronicles

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. note: nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovian Chronicles[edit]

[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)

This article on an astronomical game book is sourced to an incidental mention in a book by game company "Evil Hat Productions" (in an entry on the game's manufacturer) and a single review. My standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) discovers no additional RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep In addition to the non-trivial coverage in Designers & Dragons, the game is reviewed in reliable sources over two decades: here, in White Wolf #47 (Sept. 1994), in Dragon #244 (Feb. 1998), in Alarums & Excursions #313 (Sept. 2001), in Pyramid Volume 1 (Issue #24, March/April 1997 has extensive coverage) and in Pyramid Volume 2 (August 11, 2000). Meets NBOOK and the GNG. Incompetent BEFORE; the nominator would be well-advised to withdraw. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: More info on the review in White Wolf #47: "Rating 3.5/5. '...offers a lot of material in a beautiful package.'" https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?articleid=16993 Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The review in Dragon #244 is extensive and compares it to other DP9 games: "Heavy Gear takes place in the year 6132 on Terra Nova, a war-torn human colony in a distant galaxy. Jovian Chronicles, set in the 23rd Century, focuses on the colonization of our own solar system, where the planets have become independent domains competing for resources and power. But both games have roots in tactical wargames and giant robot animation. [...] Both are beautiful games, into which a lot of effort has been invested. [...] I do, however, like the system, one of the smartest set of universal rules this side of the GURPS* game. Called Silhouette, the system uses 6-sideddice to generate quick and sensible results. [...] Other than the lifeless settings, I couldn’t find anything seriously wrong with Heavy Gear or Jovian Chronicles. But I couldn’t find much to be excited about either. As I fiddled with the robots, my mind kept drifting, conjuring up questions. Why, I wondered, didn’t the designers set both games in the same era? [...] Why didn’t they strip out the tactical rules and put them in a separate game? [...] A system this good deserves a setting with a little more pizzazz, something like . . . oh, I don’t know . . . like Reign of Steel maybe?" (Rick Swan, pg 101-104) Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pyramid Volume 1 (Issue #24, March/April 1997) costs $4.99 but the preview does confirm they reviewed it & the game is the cover image: http://www.warehouse23.com/products/SJG30-8824 & http://luxor.sjgames.com/media/SJG30-8824_preview.pdf Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pyramid Volume 2 (August 11, 2000). Article written by Wunji Lau & Lloyd Doug Jessee. Quote (from the preview): "Being truly excellent is a double-edged sword: On the one hand, of course, you're excellent -- and that comes with a lot of perks. On the other hand, though, you have set yourself a very high standard indeed -- and a failure in the details suddenly becomes a notable offense. Which is why I'm going to take a few moments to dwell on the failures of Ships of the Fleet, Vol. 4 -- a supplement describing six Venusian ships of the Jovian Chronicles line, the principles of Venusian ship design, and Venusian fleet operations. Although these failures may all be in the details, they are no less disappointing. Why are they disappointing? Because Dream Pod 9 has excelled -- with all three of their games -- in providing a level of depth, breadth, and quality for their fictional worlds that almost beggars the imagination. When, for example, you not only know the broad strokes of political machination and warmongering in the solar system of the 21st century, but also what the favorite books of the Jovian Confederation are, and how the details of shipboard life onboard a Constantinople differ from those of an Birmingham -- and all of this weaves together into a consummate and seamless whole -- you've achieved something special". http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=1797 Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone has access to this issue, could you pull a better quote on why they were disappointed for the article? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial – Designers & Dragons and the Dragon review (thanks to User:Guinness323 for that review) are already cited in the article; I do not have a copy of the White Wolf Magazine but I know there is a review. I have not seen the other reviews that he mentioned, but I will WP:AGF that they cover the subject as he stated, and appreciate that he was able to find them; would appreciate it even more if he can add something to the article from any of them as well. :) BOZ (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added quotes to the article from previews of White Wolf #47 & Pyramid Volume 2 (August 11, 2000) I could find. If anyone has full access to the list of reviews put together by Newimpartial, could you please add stronger quotes to the article? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments proposed by Newimpartial and BOZ. If the reviews exist, then the topic must be notable enough to warrant an article. Utopes (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I haven't been able to read every review, I've found evidence that at least 4 of the 5 listed above did in fact review Jovian Chronicles. Given Dream Pod 9 had 2 successful Kickstarter campaigns (2017 & 2018) to create miniatures for the new edition they have in beta testing, I expect we'll get more coverage when new edition drops. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this was nominated for deletion, given the Applegate reference, number of independent third-party reviews from notable sources, and the game appeared on the cover of a Pyramid Magazine (Issue 24).Guinness323 (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Kickstarter, YouTube, ecommerce product pages, etc. The usual deployment of REF cluster munitions rebranded as reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, ignore those. But Dragon, Pyramid, White Wolf, Alarums & Excursions (if someone can scare up a copy of it), Applegate are all RS, and the three I have read (Dragon, Pyramid, White Wolf) are all substantial articles, not a passing reference. So given that it is clearly notable, having been noted by a number of industry publications, why not spend some time cleaning up the article by removing the non-RS citations rather than nominating the entire article for deletion?Guinness323 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I see only three sources that exist which are RS. And I use RS generously as each of these sources are such that no accredited library anywhere in tbe world seems to bother cataloging these pubs in their collections (even the Lake Geneva Public Library). It is unclear to me how that could meet any logical definition of something that is notable. AfD is not cleanup but Mainspace is not a fanzine either. Chetsford (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With '"Designers & Dragons, Chetsford, I cited 6 RS above, not 3. Maybe work on your arithmetic?

And you already took one examplar of these sources that you believe not to grant Notability - namely Space Gamer - to RSN and were told that such sources are indeed RS.
Three of those (let alone six) already meet the GNG and NBOOK, so why not stop with the IDONTLIKEIT, already? Your personal definition of Notability is, sadly perhaps, not policy. Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Newimpartial. Large parts of the article are unreferenced, but AfD is not cleanup and the game is notable for having several reviews in reliable sources. WP:PAPERONLY applies here as well with the search for sources the nominator conducted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per the above. --Goobergunch|? 04:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evolution of feedback and input from the community regarding this article, I withdraw the nomination as nominator and do not object to an early closure as Keep. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2019 (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.