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 on where to merge this content. Suggest continuing the discussion at the Talk page as there's no case made for deleting, nor for a standalone. Star Mississippi 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardtack (game)[edit]

Hardtack (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable. Article lacks any refs, and my BEFORE search lacks any RS meeting GNG. Apparently, it's so obscure, that no one rated it on BGG, where it also lacks refs. As there're no refs, IMO this should be deleted. Possible PROD candidate, but BOZ, Piotrus, or Guinness323 frequently find older magazines covering niche, obscure games, so I'm taking to AfD instead. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1971? There'll be no Polish reviews, there was no organized fandom in Poland for those things until at least a decade later if not two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guidon Games until old paper-only sources can be found. There are undoubtedly hobby press reviews from 1972, but I have not been able to uncover any of them on line.Guinness323 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: I'm curious, but I'm not sure what to merge? To its history section? The current article cites no refs (not even just no RS), considering it's all OR, I'm absolutely supporting deletion. VickKiang (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it has a page and an image on BGG, and numerous small mentions in various sources (but no in-depth reviews), it clearly existed. The fact of its existence should be mentioned on the Guidon Games page.Guinness323 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clear that it exists, but if you could find short mentions in RS (could you find any other refs than BGG?) I'll then be okay with merge, right now I still support the deletion nom. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a merge cannot be done, then redirection can always be done and harms nothing. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No referenced content to merge, no sources to show even borderline notability. Ping if is such sources are found, and I'll be of course happy to revise my comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 07:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough references to show any evidence of notability. —Natalie RicciNatalie 08:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The game is mentioned 3 times in Peterson's "Playing at the World" which also mentions that it was reviewed (poorly) in Panzerfaust #52. All of the other wargames that Gygax worked on as part of the Wargaming with Miniatures Series have articles. Grubbiv (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO mentioned 3 times isn't SIGCOV- it needs to have at least one quite lengthy paragraph. As it only is "mentioned", IMO the coverage of the first one is trivial. Besides, how long is the Panzerfaust #52 article (is it a capsule review)? I'm also unconvinced that this should be kept based on that [all] of the other wargames that Gygax worked on as part of the Wargaming with Miniatures Series have articles, saying others have articles isn't a great keep rationale IMO. Even if these are significant, could you please add the refs and transclude in talk page to show that they're long enough and are RS? VickKiang (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lou Zocchi we have enough to write a short (2-3 sentence) paragraph there and coverage wouldn't be undo (as it would be at Guidon Games). Hobit (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lou Zocchi. He's a significant person in game design, and this certainly should be preserved there. Gygax as near as I can tell only wrote the introduction. Intothatdarkness 18:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see support for "Delete" as well as "Merge" but more than one merge target mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Guidon Games article contains no individual game discussions, just a list of games published. So merging information there would break the existing page format. Zocchi's page does contain discussion about individual games he designed, making that merge more consistent with the existing article. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Guidon Games, merging information to Zocchi would be UNDUEWEIGHT, but it is possible that the Guidon Games article could be reformatted in the future to allow for some information on individual games to be present there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you'd need to nominate the other game articles indexed at Guidon Games for deletion. Some of them, like Ironclad (game) contain less information than this article does. Others, mainly those involving Gygax, have more. Give that these articles are mostly short, it seems to me less content is lost if the information is shifted to the various main designers. Intothatdarkness 16:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Guidon Games as a WP:ATD, as is usually the case with non-notable products of certain publishers/companies (Template:R from product name). VickKiang explained fairly well why merging is completely pointless, and no sources to be found anywhere I searched. A clear failure of WP:GNG, but should be of course preserved as a redirect as it clearly existed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Guidon Games#Products as the best target for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:40, 20 August 2022 (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.