Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game (simulation)

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. Separate, well-known, notable topic. Needs expansion (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game (simulation)

Delete. Partly original research and not notable in any case; adds no value. Replicates a dubious section in Game and, to prevent a possible edit war over the redirect which should apply, it is best to just delete this. Orrelly Man (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid well-defined topic. It is a stub. How the heck it can be original research in 2 sentences with two references? To tag as original researct the phrase that "games of nursing, hunting and warring exist even in modern times" is quite ridiculous. Have anyone of you been a child lately? Or all children today only play wii? I guess 85% of world child population not. Of course, I will find a citation or even a dozen of them. As for "adds no value", it is just because this Orlly Man laborously copied my article into his favorite one, and now lo! I created no value!! Very nice. Or not. - 7-bubёn >t 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now . As the tag on the article states, it is currently undergoing major revamping, so maybe should wait until they have finished that before we pass any judgements.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it always happens so for a neglected topic. Nobody cares, until suddenly whamm!! "This is bullshit to be deleted". Can people learn to use google after all this long years of computer literacy? I am far cry from being expert in simulation games, but I have to waste my time just because someone thinks that the topic covered by multiple international associations does not exist. Well forget it. I am removing "underconstruction" tag. Do whatever you want. If the whole wide wikipedia will not care, not my freaking business to interfere more than I already did. - 7-bubёn >t 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The subject is highly notable and the nominator seems to have a merger/redirect in mind. This nomination adds no value to the proper process for this described at WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. Should have a better title, some of which already exist as redirect to this article, such as Sim game. Just needs checking that it is not redundant to an article with another name. Numerous sources exist discussing this game genre.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should not be confused with simulation videogames, which now dominate google, although simulation games predate computers. Slangish term Sim game must probably redirect to the videogame. - 7-bubёn >t 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this is for simulations games that are not computer based? I think in the UK we would just say "pretend" or "play act". Might be better at a title that included education or learning? Yobmod (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope and nope. Did you actually read the article? I repeat, there is a wealth of material on the subject, I simply have to time and experience in the domain to digest it and produce a reasonable overview. If experts are not willing to contribute here, let it sit as a pitiful stub as a token of scorn towards them. - 7-bubёn >t 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's clear: "The root of this meaning..." Surely 'concept'? The idea of playing simulation/roleplaying games comes from pre-history. Not the meaning. 'Activity' is better. Changed it anyhow. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 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.