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 delete , in the absence of evidence that the award in question is significant enough for a nomination for it to confer notability. There is support for a redirect, but no consensus on a target for it. Vanamonde ( Talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Passage to Cathay

Passage to Cathay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any sources beyond the single "capsule review". A result for White Dwarf 76 seemed promising, but it was an advert. Nothing further in the 26 Google hits. Company has no article, so no obvious redirect target. Fram ( talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep In addition to the Space Gamer review, this game was nominated for a Charles S. Roberts Award in 1985. Guinness323 ( talk) 16:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Which is an extremely obscure honour. This nomination is listed at one website, that's it... A site which is, judging from the "about", actually a wiki, not even a reliable source in the first place. Fram ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The Charles S. Roberts Awards are perhaps the most prestigious annual games awards on this side of the Atlantic. Of the hundreds of games created each year, only five are nominated in each category. While I don't use Board Game Geek for reviews, since they do not give the reviewers' names, it is an excellent source of factual and accurate information about games. Guinness323 ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: this is pretty obscure. I'd prefer to merge it if there were a reasonable merge target. Hobit ( talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge to Dave Nalle per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Well, you first have to ignore that the lone reliable source,Space Gamer, claims that the article was created by Eric Olson and doesn't mention Dave Nalle... Too bad that the only part of your vote which isn't identical to all your other votes all the time seems to be wrong, but there you go! Fram ( talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • That was an error of omission on my part. Board Game Geek and Spotlight on Games both credit Dave Nalle, founder of Ragnarok Enterprises, but Eric Olsen co-wrote this and several similarly-themed games with Nalle in 1983-1985, including Middle Passage and Pacific Passage. Article has been corrected, thanks for pointing this out. Guinness323 ( talk) 18:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
      • BGG (or the rather retro layouted Spotlight) is not a reliable source, Space Gamer presumably is, so you should go with that source and credit it only to Olson (as does your other source [1], but that's probably no more reliable either). Fram ( talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Good points. They both definitely collaborated on Middle Passage (both their names are on the title page). However, Nalle's several autobiographical sketches often include Middle Passage but never Passage to Cathay. Olsen seems to be the clearer choice. Thanks for your help with this. Guinness323 ( talk) 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not notable. Ashishkafle ( talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Aside from the single review, all of the other sources seem unreliable, and no additional RS can be found. We're not a game database. Even the game publisher is NN. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Which sources seem unreliable? Luding, although in German, is an accurate source of information in a country somewhat obsessed with board games. Board Game Geek is likewise an accurate source of information about games. The article uses these sites to establish facts about the game, which are not in dispute. Notability, currently obtained from a lengthy independent review from a RS and a nomination for a major award, is what is being questioned. Guinness323 ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Boardgamegeek is a wiki and already has been shown to be incorrect on this game. The "nomination for a major award" is so important that it has received no attention in reliable sources whatsoever and is only found in that unreliable wiki. Which still leaves us with only the one review. Fram ( talk) 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The Charles S Roberts nomination is enough to demonstrate notability. Andrew🐉( talk) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Andrew Davidson: The Roberts award seems to be very minor and it's only a nomination. I'm not sure how that provides a free pass through notability when GANG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirecrt. One obscure award, one minor review (by definition, capsule suggests a very passing one). This is better than nothing but not enough to merit passing NBOOK/GNG. I wonder if there is a wikia this kind of content could be preserved, though. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:26, 14 July 2020 (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.