Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.BLP (2nd nomination)

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. it could've been closed as a delete & redirect but since neither Izno nor Thibbs provided a target for their redirect !vote, I'll leave it up to them to recreate & redirect to their target of choice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.BLP[edit]

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

Delete because:

The subject of this article lacks notability
The article constitutes of nothing but original research because basically, it exposes trade secrets of Blizzard Entertainment
Because these original researches are achieved through reverse engineering the Blizzard games in violation of its license agreement, they are either software piracy or fair use; in case of the latter, WP:NFCC does not allow us to publish this info in OR form.

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the concerns raised last time, I actually don't know why it wasn't deleted then. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess the nomination says it all. This is unverifiable original research. They IP concerns are also problematic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure OR. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I don't think we are running into "trade secret" territory here, given that it has been online for years and is not truly verifiable without original research and is of questionable notability, it may be best to delete it rather than merge it if the case is going to be made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a clarification: Hollywood glamor around the word "secret" notwithstanding, "trade secret" is just another word for "proprietary"; in other words "not open-source". Sorry, movie goers, but real world is sometimes bland. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "trade secret" does not mean proprietary information. It does means proprietary and non-public information. My corporate course on IP was quite clear on that. Given how public this file format is, it ceased to be a trade secret a long time ago. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fine distinction indeed. Thanks Still, I don't know whether I need to edit my nomination, because if it is OR, then it is at least attempted exposure of trade secrets if not the exposure itself. Meanwhile, as long as the games are short of freely licensed, the WP:NFCC concerns remains valid. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proprietary still doesn't quite cover what it actually means — the file format could be a trade secret without being proprietary (though most such things are proprietary...). I wouldn't call it OR in the sense that Wikipedia uses it. The information in this case was originally published elsewhere rather than here (and the page includes what is basically a general reference). I'm not sure that NFCC is an issue here either.... However, any which way, WP:N and WP:NOTGUIDE are completely fine reasons to redirect or delete the article. --Izno (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable file format. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merging for lack of notability. I explicitly reject comments 2 and 3 made by the nominator as deletion rationale. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merge per Izno. The nom's badfaith characterization of the article as trade secret exposure notwithstanding, there is little question that GNG is not met in this case. Rather than couching it in terms of misappropriation, I'd suggest that the article is simply too detailed and that it falls on the wrong side of WP:NOTGUIDE. (Also: obligatory.) -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see nominator's assessment as follows:

Correct. Articles that lack notability are deleted.
Correct. Wikipedia:No original research says "Wikipedia articles must not contain ... material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." That entails deleting such contents.
Incorrect. While NFCC applies to all sorts of published material including video game formats, this clause is redundant because this angle is covered by WP:NOR. If the WP:NOR issue is resolved, i.e. some publisher succeed in printing about said format, the copyright issue is assumed to have been automatically resolved. You might argue that we still cannot include those data. I say, yes, but again that angle is covered by policy on no excessive quotation (a copyright policy) and WP:NOT. This clause would have applied on a Wikimedia Foundation project that accepted OR but had NFCC too.

Basically, there was no need to bring NFCC and trade secret issues into this discussion. This material, even if super-well-sourced, belong in WikiBooks, not Wikipedia anyway. While we are at it, User:Izno must avoid statements such as "nom's badfaith [sic] characterization" and assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by being wrong or having a different opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was Thibbs. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain what I meant by "badfaith [sic] characterization", the nom has suggested that this article presents legal problems (IP infringement) and further that the article's writer was himself (via WP:OR) the source of the allegedly infringing material. I see no evidence that the material is original research (instead I see evidence that it comes from archive.org and several non-RS sources) and I see no evidence that this article exposes trade secrets. I would say that the nom should avoid making such alarmist claims unless evidence for them is provided. The reason to remove this material is because it is overly detailed and non-notable, not because the article's writer(s) have engaged in violations of IP law. -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2013 (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.