Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Season Pro Football

From 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 Merge three of them into Replay Publishing and make these three redirects. I will leave any further merge of content to the main article. It can always be found in the history.Bduke (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Season Pro Football

Second Season Pro Football (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable game, speedy was declined. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating

Replay Basketball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Replay Publishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Replay Baseball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- added by me (originally an A7 speedy by me, restored on request for hearing with related articles here) Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect baseball, football, and basketball to Replay Publishing, per slight improvements to article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While I agree that the other Replay pages could probably be rolled into the main Replay Publishing page, I think that the Replay Publishing page qualifies as a notable subject. At least one game this company produces has been in the sports simulation community for over 30 years, and was only temporarily out of print due to rising costs associated with Major League Baseball licensing. The article includes references to prominent sites within the gaming community (boardgamegeek.com, tabletop-sports.com, and tabletopbaseball.org, which all give information and/or reviews of the product(s)/company in question. As such, it provides at least as much notable evidence as the APBA page, which does not even give sources for evidence of famous players that are listed as having played the game. I am the author of the Replay Publishing page. Kezzran (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent sources, no evidence or assertion of notability, slightly advertorial. Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all as lacking reliable independent sources unless these are found.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep but I'm not convinced that the third-party coverage is substantial enough.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This being my first article, I'm having some trouble understanding where it falls short in notability, reliable sources, etc. I'd be most grateful if someone could enlighten me, in plain English. :) Specifically, I'm comparing this article to the APBA article, and am uncertain how mine falls short while that does not. I could probably point to other pages, but that is an easy one as it's part of the same genre as mine. Any information on how I could better prove notability and reliable sources (beyond the boardgame sites mentioned in the article) would be much appreciated. Again, identifying myself as the author of this article. Kezzran (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I can tell you where the article falls short when it comes to reliable sources: There are external links, but every single one of them is to a site owned by Replay Publishing. Although such links are useful to the casual reader, they must not be used alone: you must find non-trivial sources written by independent third parties such as magazines, newspapers, or anything not related directly to Replay Publishing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the reply Blanchardb. I must disagree with you that every single external link is a reference back to the site owned by Replay Publishing. In fact, one of the two external links is owned by Replay, and in my references section I site three independent sources that review Replay and/or discuss its history. My understanding is that sources for material go into a references section, and that external links are simply provided for additional information. If rectifying the article so it will meet the standards of Wikipedia is as simple as adding some of the reference/citation links to the external links section, I'll gladly do that. I'd like to reference the APBA page again, which has 5 external links, 3 of which point back to the company itself. It would seem that this article would also qualify for deletion based on this criteria. I'll change things up on the page, and I'd like you to take a look at it again to see if the article is up-to-snuff. Again, thank you for your time, I hope I can bring this article up to standard so that it may be included alongside similar articles, such as APBA and Strat-O-Matic. Kezzran (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable article per WP:N and lack of sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Updated the page with link to a newspaper article as well as providing more information on the main article Replay Publishing rather than linked pages of each game they produce. Continuing to cite sources and provide links in an attempt to demonstrate notability and proper sourcing. Currently seeking information from the book Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The Unlikely Success Story Of A Game That Became An American Passion by Glenn Guzzo, the seminal book concerning the sports simulation community, which I've been told gives mention to Replay Baseball. Once I have this, I will provide that data on the Replay Publishing page. The page now has a significant number of citations and links, in comparison to other articles of the genre (see APBA). Further comments on the page would be appreciated, especially if it is now up to par, which I believe it is.Kezzran (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Added citation of two books which discuss Replay Baseball, from Replay Publishing.Kezzran (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep one article only. I originally put speedy on Replay Publishing but the author has improved it since then. He has added references and, while work is still needed, there is proof of independent coverage of at least some of the games. The author is new to Wikipedia and he is struggling a bit to get it right but he is trying to do the right thing and I think that an acceptable article can be achieved. I recommend folding all the good content into one article, probably Replay Publishing. The others can be redirects. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Replay Publishing article still looks like an ad, but at least its subject's notability is asserted and sourced. I will not withdraw my nomination of this one without consensus to do so (though I support a withdrawal), but I feel that, should it be kept, the other three articles nominated here should be merged to it. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments everyone. I do think it would be more logical to merge the other articles into Replay Publishing, being the umbrella company that publishes the three games. Thoughts? Kezzran (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it per above commentspossibly cleanup and add sources to it. Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it Per notability and possible spam issues. MBisanz 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes I like the thought process by previous commentators and now think that a Merge of all into Replay Publishing and then a good rewrite to remove the advertising style would work. --VS talk 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent, what is the process from here? Do I do the merge and redirect the other pages, or is this something an admin must do? Following this, I'll try to work on the re-write to make it more informative and less advertorial. Kezzran (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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.