Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical realism

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 merge in part or redirect to tactical shooter. Sandstein (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical realism[edit]

Violates 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization, 4: WP:SOAP

A few google hits don't make a wikipedia article. This isn't a notable genre. No reliable research to back it up, so it violates WP:OR. This is probably redundant with tactical shooter. Strikes me as self-promotion of a small community more than any notable genre. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete redundant with tactical shooter. maybe redirect, and add a foot note in that article that there is a strong community around tactical shooter games, due to realism. but this article looks like a fansite more than anything. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The whole purpose of the term tactical realism is to emphasize that there is realism in the tactics of the game. Even Counter-Strike has been labeled as a tactical shooter, and while it emphasizes teamwork and team tactics, it does not have the means to employ realistic tactics, such as ironsights. Please check the talk page for some stuff I have dug up. I understand that I am the main editor of this article and am biased, but I have been meaning to improve this article for a while. Give it some time. --Leedeth 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading and re-reading it's finally sinking in. The thing that's instantly confusing is that it's labeled as a genre (as virtually every gaming term is by at least some sites/reviewers/players), when everything seems to be pointing to a style of play of FPS games and a community/movement that's grown around it. It's a potentially useful term, certain FPS games put into a tactical realism category, for instance, but only if it can be properly defined. The links in the article and on the talk page indicate that whilst there is a grouping of players under this banner, but I'm not convinced it is a subject which can be reliably defined in an article. I'll have a look for some sources as soon as I'm able, but leaning delete or userfy on this one. Someone another (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this establishes that this article is more about a community than any specific genre. There is definitely a community that is working hard to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to some games, based on their level of realism. But I think this either makes this article into an advertisement for that community, or a sub-section of tactical shooter. I still think this article shouldn't be here. But maybe instead of deleting it, it should be redirected to tactical shooter. There, you could enter a sub section on the "tactical realism" community -- who judges tactical shooters based on their level of realism. In the long run, who knows, maybe the term will grow in usage, and this article will eventually be notable enough. But I don't see that now. Not yet. Randomran (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter~~ Tactical shooter and redirect Wading through the muddy slapdash terminology surrounding videogames is a nightmare and this one was no different. When using this exact term or ones like it, sources seem to be doing one of two things: referring to Tactical shooters or referring to what seems to be a growing community of gamers who like a particular playing style of First-person shooter, which is centred on particular FPS games, modifications for them and in particular game servers which support this style of play - online FPS games. There's a moderately reliable source here, endorsed by Shack News and Game Set Watch (and perhaps others), which can be used to cite a basic outline (IE "this style of play emulates what a real soldier would do as much as possible" with a few examples like grenade spamming) within that article. Trying to go into too much detail puts undue weight on a single source and would over-emphasize what is one corner of online FPS games. Should it be covered in more depth it would be something great to pop back out and expand with cites, though I'd advise against labeling it as a 'genre', the chaotic and totally uneven way in which genres are covered on WP is an example of why excessive references to different genres are the opposite of helpful. Despite which, kudos to Leedeth for being so level-headed when dealing with a subject which is important to him. Someone another (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Military simulation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Undecided. I would say merge with Tactical shooter, but I doubt any of the material in the article is sourceable. SharkD (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, the source Someone another linked to does cover the points in significant detail. If we can establish the source's reliability, then I will definitely say Merge. SharkD (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm not sure what the article has to do with MMOFPSs, so I don't agree with a merger into that article. SharkD (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of the games which fall under its banner are online ~~MMO~~FPS, but looking again Tactical shooter is probably closer to the mark, changed suggestion accordingly. That source is certainly comprehensive but it doesn't really scrape reliable - it's a site which seems to have support of those with an interest in TR but isn't that far removed from a large fansite. If I was citing a small section about TR in another article, I'd use that source to wing it, but I wouldn't hang an entire article on it. I had a bloody good look before first commenting and had another just now and nothing else is coming up apart from the sites Leedeth has provided, various forum posts, gamer profiles, game server details etc. etc. A single-paragraph merge to Tactical shooter with a cite via the above article would provide as much coverage as I'd give it if I was writing it personally. Someone another (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tactical shooter and redirect per Someone another. I agree now that it isn't notable enough to have its own article. Tactical shooter states: The tactical emphasis is thus on joint goals and assisting team members, rather than on overcoming realistic individual limitations. This is what I believe tactical realism is trying to cover. That article you linked to is already listed in tactical shooter as well. --Leedeth 10:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw deletion, conditioned on merge I'm impressed with your willingness to compromise, for someone who has obviously invested a lot of time into this article. I can support a merge, and think Tactical shooters make the most sense. In spite of everything, the information here is still useful and should go in wikipedia. But as part of a more notable article, though. Randomran (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]