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. Consensus against deletion; concerns about sourcing and merger can be addressed on the talk page. czar 04:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Management (game)[edit]

Management (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) (subsection products) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another drive-by nomination with no specific details about the topic – just the usual cut/paste boilerplate. As such, there's not really a case to answer. There has certainly been no consideration of alternatives to deletion per WP:ATD, such as merger to Charles S. Roberts (the designer) or List of Avalon Hill games (the publisher). And no study of likely pre-Internet sources such as the Handbook of Games and Simulation Exercises. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Its hard to find a game when it has a name like "management", so many search results appear to sort through. I can find pictures of every part of it and information to prove it exists https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7006/management but not sure if any reviews of it existed back then, or how popular it was. Dream Focus 11:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream Focus, given the game's name change, do any other sources come up? BOZ (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Avalon Hill games. As said by Dream Focus, there is certainly evidence that the game existed, but little else from reliable sources that can be found so far. As there is absolutely no reliably sourced information currently in the article, merging is not appropriate. Interestingly enough, its entry at List of Avalon Hill games actually does have a source attached to it, but unfortunately, it is just a single sentence of coverage, so not enough for an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The added sources from "The General" are all primary, as it was Avalon Hill's in-house publication, which provide a lot more information on the product but doesn't help with notability, and the Urbanite Magazine article is the one-sentence reference I mentioned above. The Stephen Penn article, though, is pretty in-depth, and supports the claim in the Urbanite article that the game is used regularly in business schools. It would still help a great deal if some actual reviews could be found, but I think the information included so far just squeaks past a Keep for me. Rorshacma (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article has been basically rewritten from scratch; I have not yet evaluated it fully, but I think this at the very least warrants a merge. BOZ (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Guinness323 below. BOZ (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The game was republished in 1973 as Business Strategy. I have added reference to a lengthy article published in 2019 describing how the game is used at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology to introduce the concept of business management. Charles S. Roberts was the designer, and I have added another source that says it was his favorite game design of that period. Guinness323 (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Evidence of notability has been found. Dream Focus 13:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Impressive expansion, and I considered withdrawing my nom, but in the end, all we get are few mentions in passing. The best source is Penn's comment about how he used it, and it is just few sentences long. Even if we treat is an in-depth (and that's a stretch), GNG still requires multiple sources. Can we find anything else? A single review somewhere? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Penn article is much longer than a paragraph, it is several pages regarding his use of this game, I just kept the wiki content to a minimum because the article is about the game, not the pedagogy of classroom use..Guinness323 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. I am satisfied with the existing sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good work on the HEY. I am satisfied that the article is notable - I even added two newspaper articles. Avalon Hill is Certainly very notable. I wonder why there is a redirect on Avalon Hill Games? Seems like a notable WP:NLIST could easily be created. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean a list of their games? We have one, its just at List of Avalon Hill games. Rorshacma (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sourcing identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2020 (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.