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. No further rationales for deletion have been advanced since the article was improved during the discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journey Through Europe[edit]

Journey Through Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article was subject to a PROD. It comes from the days when Wikipedia was substantially less rigorous than today. I tend to the view that articles of this vintage deserve AfD rather than a PROD. The PROD rationale by Piotrus was:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.

I agree with their rationale, have discussed PROD removal with them, and am requesting a full discussion. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my cited rationale. Few other observations: 1) the game is also known as "Explore Europe". GBooks/GScholar searches under both name did not reveal anything. 2) There is likely an article to be written on a related topic ("The first marketed English geographical board game, A Journey through Europe, or the Play of Geography." (see also John Jefferys). So for anyone searching for sources, please don't confuse the possibly notable 1759 game by Jefferys with the discussed here non-notable 1954 game; I don't think there is any connection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are pretty much no sources for either of the English titles, outside of the usual game database sites and sales pages. Searching for its original, German name "Europareise" does produce a few results, but even those are nothing but passing mentions. It also appears that the German Wikipedia does not have an article on the game, so I was unable to use that to see if they had included any non-English sources. It could probably also be Redirect to Ravensburger, the publisher of the game, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a rather well-known children's game in Europe, and has been reviewed on a number of European game review sites. I have added those to the article, as well as re-organizing it.Guinness323 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guinness323, Thank you for your finds. My concerns are: 1) what makes reich-der-spiele reliable? The site does call itself an 'online magazine', but it is at the very least niche (it does not have an entry on de wiki). I'd say they are reliable for facts, but does being reviewed in such a niche website help establish notability? I'd actually lean to say yes (treating at as a type of online trade journal with non-anonymous authors and AGFing they have some form of internal reviews - but frankly, they don't say they have them, and maybe they just publish anything their team plays without any internal control, who's to know? I do wonder what WP:RSN would say...) but 2) [1] doesn't even have 'about us' section I can see. It also calls itself online magazine, but here, we don't know who writes it. I'd say this source should not be considered for reliability. 3) [2] this looks very bad. The site used to have a domain at www.spielphase.de but it just redirects to http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/keirat/ now and it looks like someone's personal homepage/blog (authors are Claudia Schlee & Andreas Keirat, and note /keirat'). There is no about. So again, thanks for finding, but while I may be convinced we found one plausibly (but not clearly) reliable review, the other twos are IMHO not reliable (self-published), and GNG does require 2+ good sources... Ps. I don't think there is such an entity as 'virtual game museum Ludomu', it seems like a list on a subpage of the reich-der-spiele magazine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep sources in the article are certainly independent. If the publishers have editorial control is a lot less clear. But I don't see any reason to think the reviews are wrong or the things published have any issues with reliability. Add in the long publication history (not an inclusion guideline but a sign that the game has had an impact) and I think we are over the bar. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guinness323 and Hobit, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being prodded by Piotrus is not a reason to delete; quite the contrary. Note that Piotrus is topic banned "from discussing or editing anything having to do with WWII (including pre- and post-war) or anything having to do with Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine...". The game in question has evolved in line with European history and WWII has naturally had a significant effect on this. The various editions involve the political frontiers between German and Poland, including the controversial city of Danzig/Gdansk – the flashpoint which actually started WWII – and which appears in at least one edition. @El C: should please consider whether this is a breach of the topic ban.

As for the topic, it is a boardgame from a major German manufacturer of same. Board games are especially popular and respected as family entertainment in Germany and so one would naturally expect coverage in that language. Guinness323 has ably demonstrated what can be done when the topic is approached with a constructive attitude. WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, Piotrus' topic ban has expired a few weeks ago (around the 1st of the month). El_C 14:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, my impression is that the ban was placed on 1 Feb and so would last until 1 March. The PROD was placed on 7 Feb and discussion continues here. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, gah, you're right. Apparently, I'm unable to count the passage of time for some reason! //Investigating. El_C 15:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the lockdown, such as we have here in London, I find that one day seems much like another and so the days blur. Or it could be the old saw that "time flies when you're having fun!" :) Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, yeah, exactly! What month is this again? Anyway, the investigation: the board game may indeed have been impacted by WWII, and it may also touch on a Polish-German connection in some way, but I do not see Piotrus (or anyone else here, for that matter) make mention of that in this deletion discussion (besides you), as being noteworthy (or per se.). The article, as well, makes no mention of this time period (whatsoever). So, I would be wary to deem this a violation of the topic ban. El_C 15:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Davidson, I was unaware of the topic ban. I took the PROD at face value, found I agreed with the rationale, but felt that the case deserved an airing rather than the summary deletion at the end of an expired PROD.
  That airing seems likely to keep the article. I'm happy with any consensus based outcome. Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Affirming that, at a glance, this isn't an article which seems suitable to PROD. El_C 17:35, 18 February 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.