Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Battle Force

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, though merging to a combined article per Torchwoodwho might well be a better longer term solution.--Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Fleet Battle Force

Star Fleet Battle Force (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This gaming article reads like a spammy product launch, offering free samples and details of future product releases. Notability is not asserted in either the article text, nor is evidence demonstrated of notability other than links to publisher's own website. --Gavin Collins 07:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spammy with no assertion of notability, no Wikipedia:Verifiable sources MrZaius^talk 09:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a lot of articles based on the 'Star Fleet Universe'. If we delete this, we will have to delete all of those other articles. A lot of different users have edited those articles, which suggests that it does have some level of notability. It also seems to have something to do with Star Trek, which is highly notable. The articles have a lot of information in them too. I really don't know whether these should be deleted or not. If someone can prove notability, that would be good.Darkcraft 09:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I revised it and cleaned it up a bit. How's that? (Note I am not the entry's originator.) granted the game is not that hugely significant, but it is one valid part of the SFB universe. SFB overall has huge notability and significance. thanks for notifying me about this. BTW, note that for a work as huge as SFB, it is useful to have some clarifications about even more minor items. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There's a review of this game in the latest issue (Sept 2007) of Fictional Reality [1]. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, takes a while to download, even with DSL. can anyone please provide an excerpt here, if they have a chance to get the article from the website? It is a pdf file. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I added in two footnotes to the review, as well as a quote. Hope that helps. Locating another source/review or two shouldn't be too hard I would think. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the links you have added makes this look even more spammy. The 'review' looks like product placement to me. --Gavin Collins 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, when in doubt, impugn the references... As you, yourself, said to me elsewhere, "Prove it". I don't think they're "product placement". --Craw-daddy | T | 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge a product summary on to the publishing company's article page. I think commercial games have almost the equivalent notability to cinematic movies. But the closest criteria I could find is WP:NB, which this does not quite meet (although I'm uncertain about the published works mention, since it has received reviews). Some criteria such as top seller, new revisions published, or released at a major game show, would seems appropriate for notability (to me), which this may satisfy. I do think the game was sufficiently well-received to deserve mention. Otherwise keep. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Mergge - The footnotes don't look spammy to me. Rray 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ughh... Sigh... Trim, Relocate and Delete I'm going to kick myself in the morning for this one, but I'm going to suggest that someone builds a new page with a title like "Star Trek RPGs" and lumps all of this stuff together on there. I make no bones about my inclusionism, but in this case it has to be relocated and clipped. It makes me sad that I couldn't find any solid reviews or articles about this game. You really need sources that will stand up to a hard beating, and it just doesn't cut it right now, however I think Star Trek RPGs in general are notable and if they're moved to a new page and condensed I'm fairly certain that their combined sourcing would have a better shot of staying on Wikipedia.--Torchwood Who? 06:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Star Fleet Universe and SFB series of games are notable, having been a fixture on the gaming scene for many years. Colonel Warden 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article needs to be sourced, but not deleted. Keeping in mind to do a proper sourcing of this is going to require people to go through stacks of old gamer journal, not websites. It will take longer. But proper research should not be rushed nor subject to a "popularity" contest. Web Warlock 19:12, 27 September 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.