Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest (gaming)

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. The article has been substantially improved and eight references were added during the AfD. Well done. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quest (gaming)

Complete patent original research. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year - AfD is not for general cleanup issues, but this article has serious verifiability problems. Chardish (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I'd dig up my sources first, but the nature of this topic means that sources could be buried in books, journals and in a thousand places that take time to reach. In terms of verifiability, such a huge aspect of gaming (both table-top and video gaming) is going to be covered in the numerous game design books floating around out there. For a taste, here's an article from The Escapist, the second place I looked after the horror of trying to find sources via google set in. It's no less than a four-page article on escort missions. They're out there, perhaps someone with access to more powerful search tools than google could pull out some more, but losing this article doesn't seem necessary when it could eventually be brought up to standard. Someone another 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a staff member of IGN's musings on fetch-quests. I'm not looking any more, not enough weeks in the hour :| Someone another 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep, per Someone. This is an EXTREMELY notable aspact of gaming. Clean up if nessesary --Armanalp (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You see original research, I just see a lack of references. This is a pretty notable topic. The article is in bad shape. But hopefully someone can at least begin to do the hard work of referencing this notable and important concept. Randomran (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's original research or unverified claims that potentially has too broad a scope unless proper sourcing is inforced. Potentially, anything you do in any game can be considered a quest. It can also be considered a goal, objective, mission, task, etc. The names for categories of quests appear to be a listing of unestablished neologisms. It would be very cool if a reliable source took it upon themselves to synthesize together all the information about the abstract concept of the quest in the realm of video games, but until I am shown evidence of it, I doubt such an effort exists. (Anyone wishing to find such a resource, I'd guess the best place to look would be textbooks on game design). -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been extensively cleaned up and now has further sourcing added. Please can you review your argument in light of these recent changes. Many thanks,Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The games discussed are widely reviewed in published sources, so it seems fairly obvious that sources could be found. The actual statements of the article seem generally uncontroversial, and are easily recognized by the many people who play the games. It would be a more interesting article if the programming side were addressed, showing how variables and counters tend to make the quest mechanic attractive to game creators. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems probable the nominator fell into the common trap of thinking that a bad article warrants deletion, when the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest the nominator withdraws, and edits the article instead. User:Krator (t c) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bstone (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a vote. Could you justify your position? -Verdatum (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I dug up enough references to satisfy the notability requirements.—RJH (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per nominator. As notable as the subject may be, this is pure original research. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a thin line between original research and verifiable content that just hasn't been referenced yet. I don't think you can find much in this article that seems particularly controversial, biased, or untrue. The problem is the references. That doesn't really justify deletion. Not yet, anyway. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the material can be referenced, and mind you it has been tagged for cleanup and references since February 2007; over 14 months ago then I will happily withdraw my motion. I hope that all those who have !voted to keep have the same open mind. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been cleaned up, with OR removed and citations added. I'm working on adding further information to add more depth to the article, but I think your immediate concerns have been addressed and I'd ask you to reassess your decision in this light. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a quest is central to many games. Some of the article is probably original research, but there are some references given. I do think the article needs improvement in terms of references, but at this point, it doesn not merit deletion. Andareed (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm in the middle of sourcing some MMO gameplay articles and have a fair few reliabe, third party sources that could be used to demonstrate points in this article. These sources are mainly reviews, previews and so on where gameplay elements are critically discussed. If it would be of benefit, I'll move on to giving this article a spring clean after I'm done with the others, but I can provide some relevant sourcing in the meantime. Hope this helps. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why are so many people !voting keep on the basis of "notability" when notability isn't the reason this is being proposed for deletion? This article has serious problems; address the problems instead of using a straw man. - Chardish (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing administrator will take note of this and weigh the arguments accordingly, I am sure. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am cleaning up the article currently, adding further sourcing from strategy guides and review articles in order to assure editors unfamiliar with the terminology that these are commonly used terms and concepts in a wide variety of computer games, although I think the tabletop RPG community will probably see some parallels as well. Please feel free to review the work as it progreses. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someoneanother. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazimoff's recent additions, which do address the concerns of OR. --Izno (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The one remaining area of OR/Synthesis was actually the lead sentence and I've added a ref that seems to nail that one. I fully understand the nomination but the improvements made during the AFD (always a good outcome to an AFD) are sufficient. BlueValour (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (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.