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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angriff! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability or meeting GNG. The three refs cite the publisher's website (not independent), a rule copy (not significant coverage), and a BGG link (unreliable). Searching on Google (books, news, scholar) and BGG, I could find maybe passing mentions (I think according to Google Translate?) 1, 2, but otherwise, this isn't notable. VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched through ProQuest, JSTOR, and EBSCO and couldn't find anything for this game beyond the rulebook. Sam Walton (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. The mentions and descriptions of this game would be in tabletop wargaming magazines. Unfortunately I do not have the issues, but I can tell you this game was a key game in the formulative years of mini-figure wargaming. I searched eBay but was unable to find aa magazine auction that mentioned a review of the game, but I am positive they exist in magazines such as "Wargamer", "Europa", "The Courier", "Wargamer's Digest", "Campaign", "Miniature Wargames", "Wargames Illustrated", "Fire & Movement", "Paper War", "Military Modelling", "Wargames Soldiers & Strategy", "Moves", "Boardgame Journal", CounterAttack" and others. Radical Mallard (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since a couple of sources have been found I'm striking my delete vote. Sam Walton (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am also nervous of deleting this based only on a search for online sources. Radical Mallard is right: it is absolutely guaranteed that this game will only have been written-about in paper magazines, because of its nature, and the time it was produced. It is also highly likely that such sources exist. We should not go deleting just because we don't have those magazines at our fingertips. Elemimele (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the nervousness and it would be great if we could find some digitised archives for those magazines. I took a quick look on archive.org and found this brief description of the 4th edition of the game in Craft, Model, and Hobby Industry Magazine. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s an interesting source, but to count towards significant coverage needs one lengthy paragraph, I don’t think this meets the mark yet. VickKiang (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO the line it is absolutely guaranteed that this game will only have been written-about in paper magazines probably needs more evidence to support it. I also tried to search BGG for awards and links, and it also didn’t list any there. I will be happy to change my mind once more refs are provided, but right now I am still keeping my nom vote for delete/strong delete. VickKiang (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added a couple of sources (one of them a paper source as mentioned above, a review in Wargamer's Digest Nov. 1975). Undoubtedly there are other paper sources out there as well, this was one of the formative rule sets for modern-era wargaming. In addition I expanded the article to give background and more encyclopedia tone. Guinness323 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: Thanks for your replies! I think ref 1 and 5 are probably counting towards GNG (but could you transclude on talk page the paragraph that mentions Angriff (to see if it's long enough to be considered significant)? From what I can see, ref 2 is unreliable, ref 3 is probably too short, and ref 4 is BGG (unreliable); so I might still be at weak delete. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to tabletop gaming, this is an obscure set of rules... It's not a Dungeons and Dragons rule book, which might have a shot at an article for example. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, today this is an obscure set of rules, even in the HO wargaming world, because it has been superseded by many other sets of rules. But those new sets of rules are all based in some way on the groundword laid down by Angriff!. Back in the 1960s, this was the original set of rules that every WW2 HO and micro armor wargamer used. The question is not "Is this obscure today?' but "Has this always been obscure?" I believe the answer to that is no. Guinness323 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Guinness323: Still, I am uncertain about this. It's obscure definitely not (maybe it was popular then, but I wasn't born in the 1970s, so couldn't comment), but I still don't think it meets GNG. I couldn't access ref 1, but is it just a rules overview (if so, it isn't significant). Ref 2 is probably unreliable and is a model website; ref 3 appears to be not significant. I definitely feel that ref 5 is IMO counting towards GNG, but don't agree with keeping still. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing is, we need to prove it wasn't obscure, we can't assume that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It pains me to see this go. I'd really like to see this transwikified to some fan wiki about wargaming or such. Currently I am afraid I lean towards nom's view that WP:GNG is not met. https://wargaming.fandom.com/wiki/Wargaming_Wiki is sadly squtted by by a particular company (sigh), https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Index is closed or hard to figure out like most half-closed niche wikis, same for https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/wiki/index/ .... I have no clue how to save this. Color me sad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability appears met by current references, we're all aware this predates the era of internet reviews so source searching is hampered, and no one is making any current profit off of this. Merging to an article on classic miniatures rules wouldn't be a horrible outcome either, but there's no need to delete this just because the online sources aren't comparable to what we'd see on a current game. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I still feel that only ref 5 meets Wikipedia:GNG, ref 1 is a rules overview probably and the others are unreliable or insignificant. Either way, this AfD has been running for a while, IMO it would probably be relisted again, or right now closed as no consensus? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: This has been relisted again, and might be closed as no consensus after this. But I still stand by my weak delete vote, the current refs (no more have been added) have a single ref counting to GNG, and notability doesn't seem to be met. Do other editors voting keep consider ref 1 and 3 to be SIGCOV (from what I can see, these, at best, mentions this game trivially)? It could be argued that ref 2 is an RS, but I strongly oppose, it is a shoping site with a sketchy about us page. Many thanks for your participation again! VickKiang (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @VickKiang Honestly, I should be weak delete here too, but as I said, it pains me to see this gone without being saved anywhere. WP:ITSUSEFUL, and yes, I know that's a bad argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 25 July 2022 (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.