Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon (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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon (game)[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)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. No references provided. SunDawn (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BGG lists it in Top 150 for 'war' category (and Top 1,500 rank overall)... not super obscure, but not very well known. It got video reviews by a major board game channel: [1]. There is a recent KS for a new edition but it didn't generate any news coverage, and I can't find any written reviews. There may be something not digitized in some wargame zines or such, but as things stand right now, this fails WP:GNG. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic game which has been published in multiple editions, this easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV – see the Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society, for example. See WP:BEFORE, WP:DRIVEBY, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with your assessment. therefore Withdraw AfD nomination. I would improve the article based on the source you provided after this AfD is closed. Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Due to the presence of a delete !vote, it doesn't appear that this can be withdrawn -- see WP:SKCRIT. @Piotrus, how do you feel about this? Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaticidalprophet, One good source (Encyclopedia) is great progress, but I am not happy about the others, and GNG requires multiple (i.e at least two) good sources, so let's see what else can be dug up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but if it is kept then it needs to be moved to Napoleon (board game) (or similar), with Napoleon (game) redirecting to Napoleon (disambiguation)#Gaming as an incomplete disambiguation. Lowercaserho (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lowercaserho, Comment to closer. If kept, please move per the above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added three reviews, which should establish notability. Guinness323 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Guinness323, Errr, the Encyclopedia is actually good, but BGG is not reliable (user generated), and Grogheads doesn't strike me as high quality (rather borderline and very niche/low impact even in the online board gaming community). PS. Oh, I guess you mean the reviews in The Canadian Wargaming Journal and The Wargamer. The latter needs a disambig, and if you mean the website, could you link the reviews? They should be accessible, this being a website, right? A review in CWJ is likely good, but I am always hesitant to AGF such offline reviews - is it really in depth? It may be two page long, but it could be a two-sentense capsule review too... can anyone confirm it is long enough to meet SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above showing this game meets the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable game, one of the first important block wargames. Durindaljb (talk) 18:46, 28 March 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.