Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Star Trek

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. I've removed the tag, I'll leave the merge to the professionals. Flowerparty^☀ 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star Trek

The article subject seems to lack notability. Alastairward (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that--it documents an old text-based Star Trek game dating back to the early days of computer games. I think it's worth keeping for its historical value.Peyre (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has never been involved in this article; has nothing on the talk page; has not even made any statement that anything is wrong with this article; and has simply thrown up a deletion notice. What matter here are the merits of the subject, not the given grievance of its current state: Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, the universe being a moving target, plus if we did decide based on current state the next major change in rules would bring the place crashing down. Unfortunately we now have a time limit and are in a confrontational environment.

Suggestions on how to make that sound less harsh while remaining firm are appreciated. Anyway. The game predates video game journalism, it predates widespread Internet use, it predates graphical displays and, at first, had to print its output. It was written in the first proper programming language. How do we access the article? We'll need to check works about the history of computing - paper ones, probably - and bug relevant wikiprojects or knowledgeable editors. --Kiz o r 07:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge to Star Trek (text game). Some moments of digging revealed that this is a particularly prominent version of Star Trek text games and there are a bazillion out there. That article's receiving similar demands for improvement. We should fix it. Luckily Ia 1970s programming book that I have turned out to reference the game (not on hand until term ends, but there are scans). The Star Trek games are also covered in Creative Computing (1974-1985) and the magazine also shows that there are multiple versions in a con report and in a page of ads for nine different versions, including one on punch cards and a board game adaptation. There's also an extensive letter from the definitive version's author, on a website whose author happens to share an unusual name with a Wikipedia administrator. I also have an impassioned argument about how notability, a means to an end, applies magnificently badly to hacker lore, but with these references I shouldn't have to use it. :) I've contacted the admin and will wait a bit to see where to take these articles. --Kizor 08:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the two games related? I'd be interested to see how the merge would look. Powers ^T 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, intimately, just look at the "screenshots." Markowitz was the admin mentioned above, and before this Star Trek game AfD mess started - Super Star Trek was the first one - we had a chat and he confirmed that there are versions of Star Trek out there that are far more different from it than this one is. I expect that a merge would cover the gameplay of the definitive version of Star Trek (I think that there is one), the extent of ports, and then the defining features of particularly prominent versions such as EGA Trek and possibly Super Star Trek. It'd be nice to cover what are common features not found in the base game - that'd be tricky to source, though. --Kiz o r 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubbify and merge into List of text-based Star Trek games. Unreferenced, no indication of (or even claim of) notability. --EEMIV (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion and little evidence of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge based on Kizor's argument, but I'm highly reluctant to call for a delete based on current quality and the fact that something of this nature predates the Internet and the video game industry doesn't show up much on Google. -- Sabre (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all text based Star Trek games up for deletion (Trek73, Star Trek (text game), Begin (computer game), Begin 2, Super Star Trek, Netrek) and Apple Trek and Star Trek (script game) into a revised Star Trek (text game) to parallel Star Trek (role-playing game). --Kkmurray (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. If that article can't be sufficiently sourced reliably then it can eventually be deleted or individual unsourced parts removed, but let's pull it all into one place for some attempts first. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Ahl's version, of the same name, can be found with solid references all over the 'net. Can we close these now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide examples of these sources? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Type "star trek text game" into Google. On the first page of 10 hits you will find several reputable 3rd party sources that clearly establish notability. That's even if one discounts the extremely important considerations that since it (1) pre-dates the internet and (2) is a video game (which "real" publishers pointedly ignored), the very presence of any pages devoted to the program is a clear indication of its notability. Of course there's also the point that it was pretty much the sole reason for purchasing this book, which, as that page notes, is "The classic of the classics".
  - There were millions of copies of this game in the world, perhaps hundreds of millions. The fact that little remains of this enormous history is a testimonial to the impermanency of computer culture, a problem that haunts all retrocomputing articles on the Wiki. I don't know about you, but one of the main reasons I edit on the wiki is because it preserves history that would otherwise disappear as soon as someone forgets to pay their ISP bill. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources such as? I can see a Kotaku source, although that's generally considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/S, but beyond that I'm seeing mostly wiki-type sources and download links; only the first 30-40 results or so even seem to have any relevance to the game. You'll have to give examples of these reliable sources, because I'm not seeing the significant, necessary real-world coverage. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Amazon review that describes that books as "The classic of the classics" is a user review, try putting that one past the reliable sources noticeboard! And why are we supposed to support a keep on the basis of some ethereal "history" that makes the subject interesting? Alastairward (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Well I've said my bit already. The game was published in a widely read book, is available in hundreds of ports right now on the 'net, and shipped with thousands (millions?) of IBM PCs. All of these clearly establish notability by any definition. It's time to end this, everyone else wants a merge anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge? Only one independent source to establish real-world notability has been provided, and even that doesn't seem relevant to the subject matter; the only allusion to coverage of this game in that book is a reference to "that Star Trek(TM) game" by a commenter on Amazon. Frankly, this has been shown to have nothing but extremely trivial real-world coverage, and no amount of ports or sales are going to change that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I absolutely agree with Maury Markowitz. A very popular book featured the game, it is still widely available on the Internet, it was packaged with zillions of IBM PCs. This game WAS clearly notable by any definition. Notability is not temporary. This is an obvious keep. Varbas (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't even know if the book featured the game. Even if it did, one book is far from enough to establish significant real-world notability; the notability guideline states ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." When all we've got is one book in which we suspect there might be information on the subject matter, it's hard to justify "significant coverage". No amount of sales (the numbers of which are themselves unverified) are going to change this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you considered asking, when an editor above mentioned that he has it? I own the book as well, but frankly I'm getting out of this discussion until it gets less hostile and confrontational. --Kizor 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fundamental issue is, even with the book verified, we still don't have "Significant coverage" as per the general notability guideline. At best, it'd warrant a brief mention in an article of a wider scope; there's certainly not enough real-world context here to develop this into something significant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Kizor, Sabre and DreamGuy - preserving edit history. Oppose deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, notability notwithstanding, it's been clear from the start that covering Super Star Trek as a section of another article is a better way of organizing information than having it as a separate article. (Incidentally this, a rather unpleasant discussion over what that turned out to not need anything beyond the reach of normal editing, is an example of why deletion is a poor first resort.) A merge of Star Trek (text game) makes the most sense, whether or not there'll be some kind of general Star Trek game article is a is another, later issue, and it's not like the targets of merge decisions are binding. --Kiz o r 22:26, 25 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.