Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Boldly Go

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 and redirect to where no man has gone before. There is no justifiable reason to keep an article whose subject only generates five Google hits. Blueboy96 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Boldly Go

To Boldly Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am tempted to refuse stating a reason beyond this. Either way, this is not an encyclopedic article and never will be; so for the love of god let's get rid of it. Dorftrottel (troll) 05:06, April 8, 2008 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep or redirect without deletion per the Five pillars as referenced and organized article concerning a topic consistent with a specialized encyclpedia on turn-based strategy games. Advertisement-like prose can be fixed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Looking legitimate" has nothing to do with whether it deserves an article in Wikipedia (and I fail to see how that link proves that it's "legitmate", whatever that may mean). According to its official website, it's "a free SF web game of over 100 players". BuddingJournalist 06:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely hope you are not trying to argue here that the only thing it takes is the topic not being a complete hoax. There is no information on the notability of the subject matter, and no reliable sources to verify that prerequisite. As for redirecting it to Where no man has gone before see WP:RFD#DELETE#7.: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." So unless someone comes up with at least one single source to verify that "To Boldly Go" (with capitals!) has actually been used ever there is most certainly no "consensus to redirect": Policy mandates that it should be deleted. Please make sure to actually open and read all those very relevant links before inevitably repyling. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:13, April 8, 2008
  • In this instance, because searches for the phrase do seem to be common enough and it is a legitimate search term and consistent per the First pillar with specialized encyclopedia on phrases that a rediect to the other article would indeed be worthwhile and would allow us to keep public the contribution history of anyone who worked on it. If you check below, you'll see that "To Boldly Go" has served as the title of multiple articles and essays. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, you still want to keep the article as is? Shouldn't you amend your !vote as "Redirect"? BuddingJournalist 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is notability established? RE:Le Grand Roi – The current article violates the five pillars: a dearth of references, original research, non-neutral tone. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." BuddingJournalist 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing I have noticed when looking for sources is that perhaps the aricles itself could/should be drastically revised. For example, the phrase "To Boldly Go" is perhaps a notable expression and this article can be revised as a disambiguation or something on that expression or the current article's subject moved to a renamed article. Anyway, in terms of the title phrase itself having potential, perhaps see [1], [2], etc. As there are indeed specialized encyclopedias on notable expressions and phrases, perhaps that may be the route to go. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Where no man has gone before. Notability not established. BuddingJournalist 06:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Where no man has gone before or perhaps someone who has an interest in this subject can expand on the article with references and sourcing.Helixweb (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read the article. It uses the phrase, but has no other connection to Star Trek. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's been around forever in net years but has failed to achieve notability in that time. The phrase could be a redirect to Where no man has gone before, I suppose. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's a redirect, which seems to be the consensus, then I don't see why we wouldn't just redirect without taking the extra step of deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if deleted this article doesn't go away (and it could always be userfied or transwikied someplace appropriate), and could be revived via WP:DRV at a later date. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article already has enough sources to satisfy verifiability and I know where to find sources to demonstrate notability. I just need to wade through my toppling piles of print magazines. Wikipedia is not solely defined by what you can find on Google. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may muse, I recall that Jeremy Maiden published a magazine called He's Dead Jim back in the day. This then reminds me of the unsettled matter of Station Jim. Some days, it seems like everything is connected. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should vote to keep only after you have come up with sufficient sources. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:13, April 8, 2008
  • Yes, that's the same Jeremy Maiden. As the Colonel undoubtedly knows, the magazine far predated the internet and thus is impossible to "verify", based on the definition of the concept being used here. A few articles by Mr. Maiden relating to variations on the core rules for Diplomacy are available on-line, including Silly Diplomacy 2 1/2, Diplomacy I (rn13), and Geophysical Diplomacy, but sadly nearly all the articles and other materials written/created by him have either never been online (and thus are not "verifiable" or "notable") or they have simply disappeared over the years as websites die and the content is lost. ASpafford (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is explicit policy that we encourage articles which are WP:IMPERFECT in order that they may be improved. I am an expert in this general topic and have some familiarity with the sources. These are not so easy to access as a Google search and so proper time should be allowed for this. Your impatient desire to delete this matter rather than work on it is contrary to our deepest principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Very much yes. Until the point in time when you or someone else brings up an actual reliable source, you are in favour of deletion by default. Period. Dorftrottel (warn) 12:12, April 8, 2008
  • Again no. We have countless articles that have no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Examples include Direct sum and Old Yeller. This article has sources and it is trivial to verify what they say by using them, as I have done. Your nomination is mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT as its dismissive nature indicates. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to use policy for something as serious and destructive as deletion. See WP:PROVEIT which states, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. It is important to strike a balance between being quick to remove unsourced material that is clearly wrong or in some way damaging, and at the same time making sure that challenges are reasonable, and that editors are given a reasonable amount of time to find supporting sources. Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion." So, does anyone here really doubt that this material is accurate? Is this haste really justifed? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: This article has been around for two years now. That is quite ample time to come up with reliable sources, and there is no more "haste" involved here than in any AfD. If, as you claim, you are an expert as far as this particular game goes, then you are as qualified as anyone to produce such sources, and since the AfD has a few more days to run, you've time to do so. If you cannot, then I submit that suggests more that such sources do not in fact exist than they're just hiding somewhere. While you've mentioned several policies and guidelines, I'm sure you're aware that the fundamental Wikipedia policy that trumps everything else is WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis in the original) There, there's your policy, indeed the very one from which you quoted.  RGTraynor  15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding WP:V, are you suggesting that every paragraph/section, or every sentence, should be footnoted even when nearly all the information presented is directly verifiable via the game's website? I'm asking this in all seriousness, because it seems that maybe one in a fifty wikipedia articles meets that kind of strict standard (usually involving lots of direct quotes and literary citations which aren't applicable here), and if the policy is that loosely enforced it hardly seems grounds for deleting this article. If you'd clarify, I'd gladly do some footnoting to address your concerns, but I suspect you'd simply change arguments and say it's still not notable and that I would have wasted my time. ASpafford (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one do not doubt its accuracy; I think the notability and secondary sourcing issues may have some legitimacy, but I think even in a worst case scenario we could make a reference in the other article on the phrase about how it's used in such manners as this game with what sources we do have here serving as sources in that article. Per the GFDL, we would then redirect without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm willing to reconsider an article showing WP:N. I don't think the current sources really achieve that, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not a single reliable source exists telling us that the game actually exists (according to WP:V - i.e. our knowledge of its existence from self-published sources doesn't matter) - it has to go per Wikipedia's core policies. That an article about another topic under the same article title could be written/redirected seems quite irrelevant to me, and there would be no point keeping the edit history of a mostly unrelated topic. --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Dead, Jim: Zero reliable sources, almost zero on G-hits. That doesn't merely fail WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB, that's lower than the belly of the earthworm rummaging beneath the sub-basement.  RGTraynor  14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. While it's certainly verifiable and an article on it would be encyclopedic per the five pillars, there isn't much in the way of secondary sources with which to expand the article. Celarnor Talk to me 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*TECHNICAL ERROR - This AFD is not linked from the article. SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical error repaired. Not sure what went wrong though, appeared to be substed properly.. Weird. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there is no real evidence that this is important. But I am not aware of the significance of "PBeM Base International top 10 of 1999" --if that can be shown to be a major award, then it might be enough Are their other selections in WP? If they are, this should be also. If nobody has so far thought the others WP-worthy, then, given the strong game-orientation of WP, this probably isnt either. I'll defer to a specialist whobvknows about this. DGG (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the degree it counts, I've played PBMs and have been an RPG author and gamer for thirty years, and this is the first I've ever heard of "PBeM Base International." While it does exist (there are, after all, a whopping 23 Google hits for the term), that doesn't suggest it's particularly notable.  RGTraynor  19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Several policies failed, including WP:V and WP:N. Redirect is inappropriate because the current content is unrelated to the proposed redirection topic. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as the PBEM award can be referenced (which I acknowledge isn't there at the moment). That should yield an independent source with substantive content. Otherwise I anm content to wait, the article isn't hurting anyone. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the site exists anymore. But in any case, I did some bit of research on this "PBeM Base International", and it seems to have just been a Geocities site that listed Play by email games and allowed visitors to vote for their favorites (Archive.org version). Thus, it doesn't seem like it would be a good independent reliable source, nor would I call that award particularly notable. BuddingJournalist 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid article that meets our core policies and would not be out of place in an encyclopedia of strategy games. Catchpole (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of the Five Pillars. I'm interested to know which of these Catchpole believes this article meets and why.  RGTraynor  13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is verifiable, neutrally written and does not included original ideas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I reading the same article as you are, Catchpole? It does not cite verifiable, authoritative sources, and seems to contain original research in some places. It features an unencyclopedic tone. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. BuddingJournalist 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly redirect to where no man has gone before. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of reliable independent sources treating this. Fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What is the difference between a/changing this article to a redirect. and b/deleting this article, and then putting in a redirect for "From boldly go" to "Where no man has gone before"? In case a/, the text of the article on this apparently totally non-notable strategy game will still be there in the history, while in case b/, the text of this totally non-notable game will be removed. Which is the desired result? DGG (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, my recommendation is (b). We already have a dab page at To boldly go, containing links to two pages: Where no man has gone before and this article. I think this article should be deleted and the dab page, which will become useless in either case, turned into the redirect to Where no man has gone before, since the version without headline capitalization seems a much more likely search term. Deor (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any references that couldn't have been create by a couple of determined people in a few days. Even if it exists this is just a play-by-mail game using slightly newer technology. 100 players in a PBM is not notable. If a good reference to an award can be turned up I'll change my mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". A redirect to where no man has gone before would be fine, but only after this article's history has been deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're willing to redirect, I don't see any advantage in deleting as well. as it's important to keep as much of editors' contribution history public as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary; sometimes it is advantageous to remove even references to the contribution history. It removes copyvio and other forbidden content; it prevents easy recreation of deleted content; and it prevents editors from using the historical versions for webhosting. It's the third case that concerns me here. The article currently present serves a promotional purpose; a historical version linked from the redirect's history could also do so; so we should delete it in order to purge those versions, then put the redirect in place. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seeing these edits would be incredibly useful should anyone who ever contributed to the artcile runs for adminship, as many who participate in RfAs are not admins and therefore cannot see deleted contribs. If an article is redirected per an AfD, efforts to recreate the deleted content are usually pretty easily squashed. The benefits seem to outweigh the negatives. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only to you. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see no reason to suspect that others would not also be interested; after all, we have several arguing to keep, merge, or redirect in this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's fine that you don't see one, but many of us do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What PS said, and I for one would really appreciate it if you could cut back on the overproduction of your point at least a bit. Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:19, April 10, 2008
                • I would not have any further comments if no one responded to me; I think it would be rude to not reply to a comment made directly to one of my edits, i.e. it would appear as if I'm just ignoring that commenter, which I only do if I suspect the account is a sock. If I don't have such suspicions, I am willing to acknowledge tha editor. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Few people run for adminship without several thousand edits under their belts, and almost no one who doesn't succeeds at it. I'm quite sanguine with judging RfA candidates on the 99.97 percent of their edits that don't come from this article.  RGTraynor  22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the redirect that won't happen: Please see and read this. The page at To boldly go will be redirected, most probably to Where no man has gone before. The redirect at To boldly go will automatically redirect the all-initial-cap "To Boldly Go". The redirect is therefore not needed and in fact advised against: "Note: Related redirects are needed only if the article title has two or more words and words following the first have different capitalisations. They are not needed, for example, for proper names which are all initial caps." (original emphasis!) Best regards, Dorftrottel (talk) 02:10, April 10, 2008
    • A good deal of editors believe that a redirect would be worthwhile, though, and probably harmless if nothing else. I understand what you mean by the link above, i.e. the lower case redirect also redirect here and appreciate the effort to clarify by providing the link, but I still think having the edit histories remain public is a benefit and that way if anyone is really interested in this article's contents they can at least look at an old version of it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the creator of this article, so naturally my vote is biased, and I'd gladly attempt any improvements that would make the article viable in the eyes of those voting for deletion. I am aware of the notablility concern, but have been caught in a catch-22 -- the "reputable" on-line citations that make TBG "notable" under the interpretation of wikipedia guidelines simply no longer exist. When TBG was new in late '90's and free games of its type and quality were unusual, it was easy to find reputable articles/reviews/sources on-line about it that would be considered notable within the context of the free-to-play turn-based strategy gaming community. Obviously, notability has to be viewed in that context, or the entire concept is meaningless. But of course that was a decade ago. TBG stopped being new, and combined with the drop-off in turn-based gaming, people stopped writing about it much (or most other games of it's type that weren't for-profit or income-generating to some degree), and the old articles/reviews gradually went away. That doesn't mean TBG stopped being notable, it just means that verification under wikipedia standards becomes far more difficult. Personal knowledge doesn't count here, but TBG is unquestionably a notable game within it's niche (or at least was -- it is admittedly long in the tooth and less popular than it was say six or more years ago; however even a once notable game would still be worthy of a wikipedia article, especially a still-active one). So how can that be established to the satisfaction of those in favor of deletion? ASpafford (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If reputable sources existed back in the late 90s online, you should still be able to find the http://www.archive.org versions. What specific sources covered the game back in the day? BuddingJournalist 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've attempted to use that site, but I always get timed out. The PBeM Base International site, review and award was cached somewhere many years ago but is gone now. Someone above called its notablility into question above, although the link they provided doesn't seem to work. Regarding non-online sources, Flagship Magazine referenced TBG back in the day (not sure if there was ever a full review), but I have no idea what issues, and the few copies that are accessable online aren't helpful. I'll try to remember the names of other sources, but after all these years those are the two that come to mind. ASpafford (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, it's a shame archive.org can't get better servers. Anyway, the PBeM Base site is working for me at the moment: http://web.archive.org/web/19990117015748/http://webxxx.schlund.de/pbembase/pbem.htm. Could you explain what makes the award or the organization notable? From my limited research on Google, it seemed to just be a site where visitors could click to vote on their favorite games (hence the "award" cited in the article?). Its archived page also seems to indicate it would not be considered a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia (note the "add/edit a game", which implies user-generated content). Furthermore, WP:N notes that a subject should receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means, then, that a brief reference in a magazine is probably not enough to establish notability, as I certainly wouldn't call it "significant". Indeed, I've been mentioned in multiple newspapers that are considered reliable sources, and I'm probably "notable" in my niche of a community, but that doesn't mean I'm notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. BuddingJournalist 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see it now, thanks. There were a lot of "independent" reviews of games too -- as I recall the site was quite serious about covering a broad range of PBEM games in an evenhanded way (although there was a strong European bent; I think they were based in Germany), while encouraging players to list new games. The awards were issued based not just on visitor/player voting, but also on reviews by PBeM Base International staff (probably volunteers) and comments/feedback on those reviews, but that undoubtedly leaves room for fan manipulation. Just like All-Star game voting in some sports. Anyway, I know there were other PBEM news and information sites/sources that covered/referenced TBG, but my memory and search skills (or on-line archiving) have failed me. And it seems likely that new reasons would be found to reject them anyway based on slippery notions of notability and significance that seem mostly to do with mass-popularity and profit -- e.g., Hollywood films that show on 1,000 screens, vs small-budget independent films showing at a little festival or two. But I do appreciate your polite consideration of my posts. ASpafford (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per the above. WP:RS, WP:V, & WP:N violations make this anathema to a anything with even vaguely encyclopedic aspirations. Eusebeus (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a shame that the standards are being applied in such a way that very few free or open-source games (especially older ones) are deemed worthy even when they are notable within their genre/niche. I assume all of these -- [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (similar to the TBG page; seems like a nice article), [12], [13], [14], [15] (is the review "reputable"?), [16], [17], [18] (and many others) should be deleted as well? ASpafford (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If, as you say, they are notable, then there should exist reliable third-party sources that can back up the claim of notability. BuddingJournalist 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, most of these games, however beloved of their players, have a tiny base and very little, if any, notability even within the gaming community, let alone the wider world. Beyond that, Wikipedia's policies on verifiability are fairly staunch. If no reliable sources exist, then claims to notability are threadbare at best.  RGTraynor  21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they should not be deleted, only improved, as we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ? I do not understand your reasoning. How does "we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers" apply to those articles exactly? That does not have any bearing on whether or not they satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion (WP:V, WP:N, etc.). What if I create an article about myself? Can I argue that because "we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers", it should not be deleted? BuddingJournalist 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose it depends where you are a journalist for; a journalist can be worthy of inclusion and I'm sure we have articles on journalists of varying degrees of notability (not every person is Napoleon or Caesar, but you don't have to be one of the most notable figures of history to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. In a sense, by having a userpage, you do have something like an article (I know that's a slight stretch, but the userpage takes up the same amount of disk space). Anyway, though, these articles concern games (not people) that are notable to more than just a regular person's family, friends, and acquaintances. Plus, we do have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is getting kind of off-topic of the main issue (To Boldly Go). Suffice it to say, you have not convinced me that these games are notable (as defined by Wikipedia; although from skimming some of the articles, it looks like some of them may well be, but not all); all you've done is stated that they are. Anyway, back to "To Boldly Go", could you please describe why exactly your "Strong keep" vote is in sync with WP:V and WP:N? I fail to see how the article demonstrates the notability ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable") of the game. (p.s. I'm not exactly a journalist per se ;), and I can assure you, I am not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.) Almost any game is bound to have some sort of niche audience (even if it's just the coder's friends); that doesn't mean that they all deserve an article in Wikipedia. I could code a game, release it to my friends/larger community, perhaps even garner >100 users and brief mentions online—maybe even in a local paper. But that hardly fits the criteria of WP:N, and I don't see much of a difference between that hypothetical and "To Boldly Go". BuddingJournalist 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I didn't say they were all notable, although some of them appear to be within the context of their own niche/genre (with others it's impossible to tell because they're basically stubs of arguably far less value than this article). However they are all pretty clearly articles that fail the broad WP:V and WP:N standards being applied here. As for TBG specifically, I agree the difficulty here is meeting the high notablility standard. And I'm not arguing that all games deserve wikipedia articles. However, your hypothetical seems to me right around the threshold of what should be sufficient in the internet age where such games (like TBG) often have a global player base, even though the total numbers are quite modest. Otherwise, the game articles in wikipedia will be little more than the shills of for-profit games that effectively buy "notability" (a well-known practice of most for-profit games is to mail free software to "journalists", provide free access and percs, etc...). I realize that this has moved into a broader discussion, and I do not really expect to "save" this article based on the majority of responses. I simply find it disappointing that (with some fairly limited exceptions) games must be either "massive" or have a large enough marketing budget. ASpafford (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect the dab page to "where no man has gone before". Nothing said about this 'award' has convinved me it's any more important than a recommendation from Joe Schmoe's personal blog. That leaves a google search which isn't turning up anything and no presentation of anything resembling a reliable (let alone in-depth) source. Someoneanother 00:40, 11 April 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/To_Boldly_Go&oldid=1136107361"