Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek (text game)

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 arguments for deletion besides the nominator. The issue of merging can be bought up on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (text game)

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject. It might benefit from trimming the long explanation of the mechanics of the game and merging into a general list of Star Trek games. Alastairward (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while reliable sources covering the subject appear somewhat sparse, it seems to have been covered by Gamespot and Kotaku. (Also, I would like to point out that since this is Articles for Deletion, only articles you want deleted should be brought here - for articles you feel would benefit from a merger, this template should be used instead.--Unscented (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, looking back, I should have just said delete no merge. Hope that's noted for the record. Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you read the Super Star Trek AfD, where I detailed the sources I had found for this article and my intention to improve it? --Kiz o r 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that sources are needed to cite specific facts about the game, but deleting the article simply because of a lack of citations is extreme. Star Trek (or "Trek") is an important early computer game that was ported to countless different computer platforms during the 1970s (and afterward). Bumm13 (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This game shipped with every early IBM PC, many home computers, was the key draw in the best selling BASIC Computer Games by Ahl, ported to many modern platforms, and was played by millions of people in "the old days". The article clearly passes both the notability test, and especially the google test - it returns over 1 million hits, about 25% of the first several pages are proper hits on this topic. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "google test" and why aren't you trying to cite anything you're saying above? Alastairward (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the note on my talk page brought my attention to the fact that you seem to be using your own fan site to cite the article, not terribly impressive. Alastairward (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[No, he hasn't]. Left a message on your talk page. --Kiz o r 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity and transparency, I added Maury's page as an external link back on Oct. 6, 2004. Bumm13 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep video games : early generation of video games, clearly had influence on game creators and the genre itself. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important program in the early history of computer games, as shown by the Gamespot and Gamespy articles linked in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Shown where? The only two reliable sources for the game show that it existed and not much else. Alastairward (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here, for starters. Then again, you'd know that if you'd looked carefully at the references in the article before nominating. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I read them before I made that comment and it still stands. The articles mention that the game exists, nothing more. I'm getting tired of emotive and untrue arguments being thrown about by the keep camp here. Alastairward (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Untrue"? The articles do mention more than just the fact that the game exists - most of them go into some detail about the gameplay and its status as the first game based on Star Trek. As I said, reliable sources do seem a bit scarce, but they are out there, as has been demonstrated, and their coverage can probably be considered more than trivial.--Unscented (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover:

passing mention in Proceedings of the IEEE, part of a book review

passing mention in PC tech journal, ditto

mention in Kilobaud, which calls it one of two "all time favorites"

more in-depth discussion of the game in The Information Age

Byte Magazine calls it "a classic"

IBM PC public domain software has a source listing (so it's not just Ahl's book)

Also worth mentioning that the book that popularized the game, and sold largely on its basis, was the first million-selling computer book in history. Additionally, David Gerrold was contacted by Ahl to see if they could use the name, and not only did he grant it (note in Games), but went on to be quoted in subsequent advertising.

I believe we have covered any possible definition of "significant". As I noted elsewhere, this game falls into that critical "black hole" of PC history where very little about the industry was being written down at all. The fact that there are so many mentions at the time, as well as detailed ones written decades later, is ample evidence of NOT by either Wikipedia or common sense definitions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Trek games or something similar—while some of the references cited by the article seem dubious, the sources cited above show some real-world coverage; however, I doubt what currently exists can constitute much of an article, especially with the current version's game guide content and unverified list of ports. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Things don't seem quite that bad. As far as I can tell, "gameguide" is explicitly about instructions, hints and tips, not descriptive statements of the gameplay mechanics. Otherwise, we'd be hard pressed to do the latter at all. One of the more peripheral ones of the sources I mentioned is a 1970s Creative Computing page that advertises nine different ports of Star Trek, one of which is on punch cards, and there are archives of the ports floating around the Internet as primary sources. --Kiz o r 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be cut down a bit, at least; it probably doesn't need all those headings. The list below is the big problem, though. Do we really need that? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (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.