Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAEV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NAEV[edit]
- NAEV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A game which has been talked about on some self-published websites / blogs, but has evaded the attention of reliable. published sources; therefore it's going to struggle to meet WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any instances of reliable, secondary sourcing. A mole hill of unverifiable blog coverage -- even a mountain, for that matter -- does not confer notability on the subject. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Escape Velocity (computer game), the game that it mimics very closely. And by merge, I mean add 1 or 2 lines - the detail level of the current piece is not necessary given its limited notability. richdiesal (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to this providing that a)NAEV can be verified through reliable, independent sources; and b)Those sources make a connection with NAEV and Escape Velocity. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NAEV started out as an Escape Velocity clone, but as it's maturing it's moving away from the classical Escape Velocity gameplay. I do not think it makes sense to merge them.--147.83.182.27 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of most of this article, I'm obviously not in favour of deleting it.
- Consider, for example, The Battle for Wesnoth. It's one of the most prominent free software game projects, with over 3.5 million downloads on its Sourceforge page alone, which does not include those downloads served by the hundreds of Linux distributions that package it, a number likely in the millions as well. Yet its article has one, or possibly two, reliable sources. Everything else is first-party. Fact is, there isn't a lot of media coverage of Wesnoth that meets the the 'notable, reliable', criteria, because it seems to be viewed as an absolute, when it likely should be relative.
- Free software is rarely mentioned or reviewed by major publications unless it's a truly massive project, such as the Linux kernel itself, or the Apache httpd. Reviews of free software games, in particular, are practically non-existent. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, being developed incrementally means that the early versions are too immature to warrant coverage, and when a review is published for a particular version, it is rapidly rendered obsolete by subsequent releases.
- Contrast this to commercial games. They're released when they're done, subsequent patches rarely add significant content, and they often have millions of dollars in marketing behind them. This is an incentive to so-called 'notable' publications to write about them, because even if not directly cooerced by the publisher of a game, a magazine will see increased sales if a review of a popular game is advertised on the cover. Significant content additions usually come in the form of sequels, which begin the publicity cycle anew.
- In part because of this, there are many 'unreliable' technical blogs that I respect far more than just about any journalist published in a magazine with a glossy cover, because their writings are tied to what they believe in, not what they think will bring in the most sales.
- My last point is one that I find quite disconcerting. I haven't done much as a Wikipedian, because I realized that the niche projects with Wikipedia pages might actually be harmed by my editing. There are thousands of stubs that fly below the radar, being utterly non-notable, yet existing because they haven't been touched in months or years, and thus never show up to those watching the edit queue. Meanwhile, after the latest flurry of minor edits I did to the NAEV article, it was up for deletion two hours later. That's not encouragement to further edit niche articles and risk raising their profile. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I disagree with your premise that coverage of free software is practically non-existant. Online sites such as Rock Paper Shotgun give extensive coverage of non-mainstream games (for example, look at their coverage of IGF 2010). Paper magazine Edge also discusses independent games. Also, we can use self-published sources if the author is a recognized authority on the subject. But ultimately, this encyclopedia reports only on what has already been reported. If a subject has received little or no attention, then we don't include it. You're asking for a change at the policy level; to broaden the definition of "reliable source". You'd have an easier time contributing the material to a game-specific encyclopedia with a looser quality filter. I don't understand your last point. Are you saying that a topic that is rarely edited should be immune from discussion? Marasmusine (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding coverage, the distinction between freeware and "big-F" free software is fairly important, in this context. I just glanced over the IGF coverage from Rock Paper Shotgun, and it seems all the games there are proprietary, whether freeware or commercial. Typical development of closed-source independent games tends to mimic big-budget games, albeit on a much smaller level -- in that the game is released in a more-or-less finished state, ready for mass consumption, whereas an open source project typically develops from a few hundred lines of pre-alpha, barely-usable code into a mature project, but as that process is incremental there's never any big coverage of any one release, because it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. As for the reliability of sources, I get that there's potential value in editorial oversight typically inherent in a formal publication, but I also think the policy of deeming self-published content to be "largely not acceptable" (quoting WP:IRS) likely does more harm than good. Consider http://freegamer.blogspot.com/ which is one of the external links on the NAEV article. I would deem it reliable within the purview of free software games, despite lack of editorial oversight or dead-tree publishing, because it has a good track record of providing game news and insight without any spin. Regarding my last point, it's a given that policy, especially on a project the size of Wikipedia, cannot be applied instantaneously to all articles it ought to effect. However, I do think it's counter-productive to review articles for notability as they're edited, because it does have the side effect of discouraging those, including myself, who would otherwise improve niche articles towards notability. Basically, if there's any question of or difficulty in proving notability, why put effort into editing a lousy article if that edit could jeopardize its inclusion?
- I assume it's fairly common practice to judge notability as things pass through the edit log, but I would think processing questionable-notability articles starting with the oldest (by date of tag, and last edit) would yield more expedient removal of cruft with less toes stepped on. Revisiting notability of open source games, I think List of open-source video games serves as a good example, along with the accompanying category which only encompasses 76 pages. Ignoring the thousands of apparently non-notable open source games, even several games within the 'selected list' are tagged as potentially non-notable, and very few actually have adequate referencing. I don't think it's due to the free software community's inactivity on Wikipedia, given the edit activity of Linux, GNU, Ubuntu, etc., but because the bulk of coverage comes from "unreliable" blogs, forums, and the like. Sources for "professional" software like Apache, MySQL, etc. can easily be found because of large industry publications covering such things, yet most open source game coverage comes in the form of insipid "top N games for Linux" articles on blogs, and their dead-tree equivalents (Which are often sourced, given the dearth of other notable sources) with the only exception being the odd case where a game is used for someone's AI research or game design project. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, and I agree that monitoring can be inconsistant. I do periodically go through some of the "List of" articles - but yes, lack of omnipotency means that some articles go unchecked longer than others (This essay addresses that point). I also admit that I brought NAEV to discussion because recent edits brought it to the top of my watchlist - but it was on my watchlist because I tagged it with some concerns last September, and six months later I still have the same concerns; it needs to be addressed at some point. Regarding Free Gamer, you're not the only one who has argued for it (see Talk:Open source video game). At the moment it's a "no" but perhaps it can be discussed further at WP:RS or WP:VG/RS. Marasmusine (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing counter to that essay; merely that I think it makes little sense to remove ill-sourced active articles when there are ill-sourced articles that have sat stagnant for months or years. I
may make a case at WP:VG/S for inclusion of Free Gamer and similar sites.I have posted my thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:VG/RS. In general I think white-listing sites is a terrible idea, though. For example, Linux Magazine is notable enough to have its own article and apparently reliable enough to be cited multiple times yet while digging for NAEV sources, found this "article". The publication may put out some decent content, but that article is poorly-written, poorly-researched dreck... but if you go by the whitelist model, it's "reliable". There's also a Spanish site that has mentioned NAEV several times, Linux Juegos, and they're even cited twice and used as external links by es.wikipedia (I'm assuming most of the major wikis have similar policies), yet they're mostly a tertiary source translating user-generated content from http://happypenguin.org and similar. Especially in niches similar to this, I think policy should take a back seat to common sense. I'll take ten self-published sites like Free Gamer over pseudo-journalism put out by a supposedly-professional magazine. I've made Free Gamer a source, if you still feel it's unreliable, feel free to revert the change. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing counter to that essay; merely that I think it makes little sense to remove ill-sourced active articles when there are ill-sourced articles that have sat stagnant for months or years. I
- Thanks for the clarification, and I agree that monitoring can be inconsistant. I do periodically go through some of the "List of" articles - but yes, lack of omnipotency means that some articles go unchecked longer than others (This essay addresses that point). I also admit that I brought NAEV to discussion because recent edits brought it to the top of my watchlist - but it was on my watchlist because I tagged it with some concerns last September, and six months later I still have the same concerns; it needs to be addressed at some point. Regarding Free Gamer, you're not the only one who has argued for it (see Talk:Open source video game). At the moment it's a "no" but perhaps it can be discussed further at WP:RS or WP:VG/RS. Marasmusine (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume it's fairly common practice to judge notability as things pass through the edit log, but I would think processing questionable-notability articles starting with the oldest (by date of tag, and last edit) would yield more expedient removal of cruft with less toes stepped on. Revisiting notability of open source games, I think List of open-source video games serves as a good example, along with the accompanying category which only encompasses 76 pages. Ignoring the thousands of apparently non-notable open source games, even several games within the 'selected list' are tagged as potentially non-notable, and very few actually have adequate referencing. I don't think it's due to the free software community's inactivity on Wikipedia, given the edit activity of Linux, GNU, Ubuntu, etc., but because the bulk of coverage comes from "unreliable" blogs, forums, and the like. Sources for "professional" software like Apache, MySQL, etc. can easily be found because of large industry publications covering such things, yet most open source game coverage comes in the form of insipid "top N games for Linux" articles on blogs, and their dead-tree equivalents (Which are often sourced, given the dearth of other notable sources) with the only exception being the odd case where a game is used for someone's AI research or game design project. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable game that has absolutely no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Number of downloads it not relevant - many warez titles see far more than that and we do not include them either. As already noted, all the personal blog coverage in the world does not make it notable either. If/when it becomes notable, then actual reliable sources will cover it. Until, it is just one of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of small, free applications available in the world. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming you at best skimmed this page and the article in question because the downloads statistic was an attempt to convey the prominence of Wesnoth, an entirely-unrelated project that likewise has very few reliable sources despite being among the most popular open source games. Not sure what to make of the nonsensical "warez" bit, but Wikipedia does cover many unintentional leaks of movies, music and games. I'm assuming "game system" comes from the mention of the Pandora in the second paragraph, but anything beyond a cursory glance would make it clear that NAEV and Pandora are not remotely related. I suspect it's consensus that one should at least partially familiarize themself with an article before voting on its fate. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned downloads before you made that argument, as you made it for another. The warez bit is not nonsensical. One could make the same argument that warez X has Y downloads, so its notable. It isn't. Game system as in video game, not as in console. Sorry if you have not heard the term used that way and I've corrected it so as to avoid confusing you further. Please do not make presumptions about other people's remarks, and please do not presume to discount them based on your own love of this article. That is not your call to make. Thus far here and at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources you seem determined to pounce on anyone who tells you that no, you can not use some personal blogs as a reliable source, no you cannot change the guidelines to match what you want to save THIS article, and no, this game is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not equated downloads with notability at any point. Perhaps you should read the article on warez. By definition, a warez release is an illegal copy of existing media, thusly there is no such thing as notable or non-notable warez, as it comes down to the notability of what's being ripped. To garner the attention of a release group your release must be sufficiently noticeable to them, and typical scene releases are high-profile games, movies and albums. There's a large overlap between what the scene chooses to pirate and what's notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. It would seem you're attempting to yet again attack me personally in order to bring my points into question in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Pointing out the flaws in your argument, and correcting you is not a personal attack. Questioning your motivations or pointing out that you have, in fact, vehemently and lengthily argued with turned on anyone who has said delete here or disagreed with your "proposal" is not a personal attack. If you want to speak about contravening policies and guidelines, then I'd suggest looking at yourself. From the edit history, it appears that when your arguments here seemed to have no effect, you turned and tried to get the guidelines changed to make your point valid. That is a complete violation of WP:GAME and, to a lesser degree, WP:FORUMSHOPPING as you have restarted the discussion at least three times now, changing venues when one disagreed with you. I do not see where you have made a single, viable argument for keeping this argument, but instead attack the positions of those who argue for its deletion. The onus is on YOU as the one who wants to keep this article to prove it is notable within Wikipedia guidelines, not try to modify them to remove the requirement.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far you have twice insinuated that my sole purpose in moving for policy change is to protect my own article. This is a blatant accusation and an attempt to undermine the credibility of my arguments rather than refuting the content, thusly it is an ad hominem attack. If you'd care to read what is written here, Marasmusine instructed that perhaps it would be best to take the Free Gamer issue to Wikiproject Videogames, which is precisely what I did. Then I realized that the reliable sources talk page was a yet better location, so I noted that at Wikiproject Videogames and moved the discussion there, moving into an RfC. I have not restarted it thrice, I have moved it to the most appropriate location and, you'll note I never replied there despite the initial positive response. I am not looking to game the system, as you seem to have convinced yourself. You have also numerous times displayed a deliberate misreading of my comments: If you read the RfC discussion in its entirety you would realize that I am arguing to allow otherwise good sources that fail WP:SPS to be used in in-line citations with reliable-yet-poor sources noted elsewhere. Sources failing WP:SPS would not confer notability. You seem to have a confusion between the definition of debate and argument. In all my responses I have maintained a civil tone, and if I were to not respond to points made against me then it wouldn't be a debate. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it seems clear we cannot have a rational discussion, we will just have to agree to disagree. I have already made my view known, supported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. Rather than writing lengthy paragraphs claiming people are attacking you for disagreeing with, I'd encourage you to actually try to find evidence of notability for this game, which is currently lacking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far you have twice insinuated that my sole purpose in moving for policy change is to protect my own article. This is a blatant accusation and an attempt to undermine the credibility of my arguments rather than refuting the content, thusly it is an ad hominem attack. If you'd care to read what is written here, Marasmusine instructed that perhaps it would be best to take the Free Gamer issue to Wikiproject Videogames, which is precisely what I did. Then I realized that the reliable sources talk page was a yet better location, so I noted that at Wikiproject Videogames and moved the discussion there, moving into an RfC. I have not restarted it thrice, I have moved it to the most appropriate location and, you'll note I never replied there despite the initial positive response. I am not looking to game the system, as you seem to have convinced yourself. You have also numerous times displayed a deliberate misreading of my comments: If you read the RfC discussion in its entirety you would realize that I am arguing to allow otherwise good sources that fail WP:SPS to be used in in-line citations with reliable-yet-poor sources noted elsewhere. Sources failing WP:SPS would not confer notability. You seem to have a confusion between the definition of debate and argument. In all my responses I have maintained a civil tone, and if I were to not respond to points made against me then it wouldn't be a debate. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Pointing out the flaws in your argument, and correcting you is not a personal attack. Questioning your motivations or pointing out that you have, in fact, vehemently and lengthily argued with turned on anyone who has said delete here or disagreed with your "proposal" is not a personal attack. If you want to speak about contravening policies and guidelines, then I'd suggest looking at yourself. From the edit history, it appears that when your arguments here seemed to have no effect, you turned and tried to get the guidelines changed to make your point valid. That is a complete violation of WP:GAME and, to a lesser degree, WP:FORUMSHOPPING as you have restarted the discussion at least three times now, changing venues when one disagreed with you. I do not see where you have made a single, viable argument for keeping this argument, but instead attack the positions of those who argue for its deletion. The onus is on YOU as the one who wants to keep this article to prove it is notable within Wikipedia guidelines, not try to modify them to remove the requirement.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not equated downloads with notability at any point. Perhaps you should read the article on warez. By definition, a warez release is an illegal copy of existing media, thusly there is no such thing as notable or non-notable warez, as it comes down to the notability of what's being ripped. To garner the attention of a release group your release must be sufficiently noticeable to them, and typical scene releases are high-profile games, movies and albums. There's a large overlap between what the scene chooses to pirate and what's notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. It would seem you're attempting to yet again attack me personally in order to bring my points into question in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned downloads before you made that argument, as you made it for another. The warez bit is not nonsensical. One could make the same argument that warez X has Y downloads, so its notable. It isn't. Game system as in video game, not as in console. Sorry if you have not heard the term used that way and I've corrected it so as to avoid confusing you further. Please do not make presumptions about other people's remarks, and please do not presume to discount them based on your own love of this article. That is not your call to make. Thus far here and at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources you seem determined to pounce on anyone who tells you that no, you can not use some personal blogs as a reliable source, no you cannot change the guidelines to match what you want to save THIS article, and no, this game is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After looking through a few pages of results, I came across an About.com post, which, combined with Linux-Magazine's list yields two reliable sources. I'm unsure about this list and LinuxJuegos. The former appears to be games list maintained by a vendor of numerous commercial Linux distributions amongst other things, while the latter is decidedly shakier. Based on a Google translation it looks like LinuxJuegos translates content from elsewhere and may fail WP:SPS. In light of multiple reliable sources I believe this article meets WP:N. Pending completion of this RfC it would be vastly preferable to draw in-line citations from Free Gamer's well-written review versus the Linux-Magazine list. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was almost prepare to accept the blog post by David Bolton, based on his credentials, but I paused when I saw his closing comment "there's also a Wikipedia article about the game though curiously that is marked for deletion." - it's possible that Bolton used our article for reference (or written in response to the AfD) therefore we shouldn't accept his or we end up with a "walled garden". Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unfortunate how frequently that happens, but then again Wikipedia is the third Google result and there's presently the red AfD box on it. In this case I'd ask for the benefit of the doubt (If I were bent on journalist-canvassing I'd pick a higher-profile one...) and chalk it up to coincidence combined with lazy journalism. I do see the coverage as conferring some amount of notability, though the walled-garden sourcing does make it unreliable. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was almost prepare to accept the blog post by David Bolton, based on his credentials, but I paused when I saw his closing comment "there's also a Wikipedia article about the game though curiously that is marked for deletion." - it's possible that Bolton used our article for reference (or written in response to the AfD) therefore we shouldn't accept his or we end up with a "walled garden". Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks the multiple, non-trivial, reliable secondary sources necessary to demonstrate notability. Someoneanother 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You dont have a problem voting delete on this article, but link to several unsourced unreliable wiki articles for other games in your usertalk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.231.108 (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:49, 16 March 2010 (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.