Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire (strategy 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (strategy game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All references provided are broken links, and anyways are not secondary sources (coming from the college the game was invented at). My own searches turned up no further sources. This page seems essentially to be a WP:PROMOTION page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: good point on the link rot: I've contacted the Reed webmaster and their Oral History Project to try to resolve that side of it (and see if they can turn up any more secondary sources). See also the talk page in light of the discussions at Talk:Empire Classic and Talk:Classic Empire about getting reliable sources for these unrelated–now-intertwined games, where significant progress has been made in the last month (though not yet translated into the articles). I would request that we wait to see if we have any progress on these fronts before moving to delete. I also don't see it as WP:PROMO (who, trying to promote what, and why?), but an attempt to clarify the confusion surrounding these very different, but identically named games. ‑‑Yodin^T 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate your efforts but I'm not sure the links would establish notability since they're not exactly secondary sources. I took some of the peacock-ish type language on the page (e.g., "economic elements of the game are complex") and link to its website that has the game for download to mean it's promotion, although perhaps that's unfair. Are you aware of any sources not from Reed College? If not, I can't imagine this can be notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this game was a primary inspiration for Empire Classic, and is linked from that article for that reason. I created the web site for the game, but it is not like there is any money involved in that, nor much self-aggrandizement. It's a memorial to a game that other folks created. As for saying that economic elements of the game are complex, what on earth is "peacockish" about that? There is no value judgment on whether that complexity is good (indeed, for many people it would be a negative). It's a summary of the following statements in the same paragraph. Thomas Phinney (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well WP:PROMOTION applies even if there isn't any monetary gain, e.g.,: "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement". The issue with the article is there are no reliable sources. Without significant coverage in reliable sources it fails the WP:GNG. That comment in particular is WP:OR. FuriouslySerene (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's true that the Empire web site is a collection of primary source material. However, I can't see that just because an article appears in, say, a Reed alumni magazine that makes it a primary source and hence not quotable. That's absurd. I note that I did not create this Wikipedia article, just fleshed it out a bit. But in any case, I am happy to give up on Wikipedia and get some time back for other things. Thanks. Bye, Thomas Phinney (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Reed alumni magazine may count as a reliable source (it doesn't seem to me to fall foul of the underlying concept of "Independent of the subject", by the looks of the examples: "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent"), but unless you give more details we won't be able to check it out (and so the process will take even longer, probably many years, to establish notability). Are you willing to engage with the process to try to keep the article? ‑‑Yodin^T 20:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an article about the game, from the web site, which is also available in the Reed Archives. There is also a page and photos of the game in the 2011 Reed College Calendar. Tphinney (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary sources? czar 23:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They both have significant coverage (p.9 & p.8 respectively) of the game (enough to build an article from); both seem to have editorial oversight, academic authors and reliable publishers (the calendar medium is... unusual... but when you look at the foreword and introduction pp.2–3 this demonstrates its respectability / reliability, as long as Wikipedia still holds to its commitment to support all formats of reliable media); both are essentially articles, i.e. writing drawing on primary sources to give an overview of the subject, which makes them secondary by any definition I know of... I guess the question which has been raised before is: are the sources connected to Reed College independent enough from this game and each other? I would argue yes: the game was started outside of Reed, and had nothing to do with the alumni association that produced the magazine (it's essentially a local news mag), nor the college archives which now stores it (in the same way a Museum is considered independent of artefacts they hold from the local area); also the library archives and alumni association are completely separate organisations. When combined with the Wolfpack Empire site, and the Google Custom Video Game RS search, which gives Ag.ru, both of which, in publishing Peter Langston's description of the origin of the computer game inspired by this board game, again add reliability (oversight: see WP:RSCONTEXT) to it, and put it into a secondary context, much like magazines publishing an interview (a primary source published in a secondary one), you've got another lightweight WP:UGC source for the article to show the connection to the game. The Reed sources aren't the trivial listicle refbomb style lightweight sources you've argued against elsewhere Czar, but with the four of us seemingly split in half, is there anywhere else we could discuss this to get more opinions? ‑‑Yodin^T 09:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a reply from the Oral History Project, but am still struggling to find any WP:RS. There are more than enough primary sources out there that it's just a matter of time before some WP:RS are published, but if we can't find any yet, I'd much prefer we move this (along with its page history from 2007) to WP:DRAFTS, or WP:USERFY it. Tphinney, if it's WP:USERFIED would you be willing to host it, and keep an eye out (and maybe a request to those you've managed to get in touch with) for any independent secondary sources? ‑‑Yodin^T 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The interview is archived here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and let the source hunt continue. Right now there aren't enough sources, but it's fine to work on it as a draft. czar 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. From sources given, both [1] and [2] are not independent, [3]/[4] (same thing) is derivative project and WP:NOTINHERITED and would only serve as extra sourcing rather than main sourcing for GNG. Interview [5] (article links same page twice), while great for development history and insight, is not independent. As we focus on real-world perspective, such as reception, there isn't enough content for a stand-alone article. I cannot find any more sources, though the title is really hard to search by. Since the game is unlikely to receive further coverage at this point, I don't see much point in userfy-ing unless the editors believe there are more sources somewhere. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – to rehash the above, there is a dearth of coverage in secondary, independent sources. If the alumni magazine is really the only non-affiliated source to cover it, I would question the magnitude of its widespread importance/literary warrant. If there is a request to userfy, I'm fine with that, but in that case it shouldn't be reinstated until there are several non-Reed sources to show external notability. czar 16:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – So be it, I would be happy to userfy it, and don't mind taking care of the navbox and other links. As Hellknowz says, the title makes it hard to tell if there are more sources out there: with the number of primary sources I think it's a matter of time before WP:N is reached uncontroversially, it's best to keep a draft as a magnet as and when more gets published and or discovered. ‑‑Yodin^T 19:06, 17 November 2015 (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.