Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeFRaG (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The result was keep after nom was withdrawn and sources were found. Non-admin closure. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeFRaG[edit]

This article was previously deleted, but has since been re-created. Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod. Randomran (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Withdraw by nominator - My mistake. International sources (in Germany and French) exist, but hadn't been properly integrated into the article. I hope someone can properly add these sources ASAP. Randomran (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and majority of article describes techniques, which falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In-game techniques are essential to understand what the game is and what methods can be used to complete a map. Majority of technique descriptions has been moved to Notes section. If there are still some NOTGUIDE issues, use {{Manual}} or WP:SOFIXIT. Visor (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gears of War 2 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sources in article are reliable, independent of the subject and verifiable. DeFRaG was covered in gaming print magazines, German weekly magazine ("one of Europe's largest and most influential weekly magazines with a circulation of more than one million per week") and was a subject of academical paper. All of this sources has been included and proper citations are provided. Reliability of references and also an article notability has been fully explained at the article talk page under "References on DeFRaG" section. Visor (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The statement 'Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod' by Randomran, which is the rationale behind the claim, that the article 'DeFRaG' does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, is plainly false. This can be shown by the material in the article itself. Back in 2006 I already clarified this, and repeat it here in full:

Kringiel 2006a and b are almost completely about DeFRaG. It is especially stressed that DeFRaG and its community have taken the violence out of a first-person shooter game. Besides describing DeFRaG and trickjumping at length as a culture in its own right, and quoting from interviews the author has done with DeFRaG performers, the article goes on throwing it as an argument into the "computer games and violence" discussion. Kringiel 2006a was published in GEE, which is a German computer and video games print-magazine comparable to Great Britain's EDGE. GEE has a current print run of close to 25,000 copies per issue. A revised and augmented version of Kringiel 2006a was published as Kringiel 2006b at Spiegel online. "Der Spiegel (English: The Mirror) is Europe's biggest and Germany's most influential weekly magazine, published in Hamburg, with a circulation of around one million per week." (from Wikipedia's entry Der Spiegel ;-) Spiegel online is its online presence. Furthermore DeFRaG is mentioned in the academical paper by Olli Sotamaa and therein described as being exceptional. I quote: "A clear majority of modifications can be named either deathmatch mods or teamplay mods, or in certain cases both of them. Still, there are a couple of significant exceptions to this: for example The Dark Conjunction mod aims to bring a whole new story driven single-player adventure to Quake III players and DeFRaG is basically a training mod designed to improve gamer’s skills in various areas." (Sotamaa 2003: 9) So, first of all DeFRaG is subject of an article in a German print-magazine on games. Secondly this article has been deemed so noteworthy that the editors of the online presence of Europe's biggest and Germany's most influential news magazine have decided to publish a revised version of it. Thirldly DeFRaG has not only been mentioned in an academical paper, but was called to be exceptional therein. Furthermore an academical paper is in preparation which deals almost exclusively with DeFRaG, and which will be printed in an anthology consisting of academical papers dealing with the shooter-genre.

You hardly can define the professional journalist Danny Kringiel, writing for top notch print magazines of international standing, as an 'unreliable source.' Disqualifying internationally renowned game studies academic Olli Sotamaa as an 'unreliable source' might even trigger a libel suit ;-) Both men are in no way associated with the creators of 'DeFRaG,' by the way. The academical paper I mentioned in 2006 is finished since long, but the anthology unfortunately still in print. Nevertheless, the final draft of the paper 'Die Aneignung des Spielraumes' (of which I am the author; I am an assistant professor in anthropology, specialized on 'cyberculture') is available online. My paper is a reliable source (which already went through academical peer-review and the publisher's professional lectorate), I only refrained from bringing it into the Wikipedia article, because I wanted to wait for the print publication. Maybe I should mention that I am not affiliated in any way with the creators of the game.

http://xirdal.lmu.de/downloads/KNORR_2007_Aneignung_des_Spielraums_v2.pdf

Furthermore, the article already has been painstakingly peer-reviewed, subsequently has been much improved, and, as a consequence, finally has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. The article is not yet 'perfect,' granted, but gets more and more improved.

In respect to the WP:NOTGUIDE issue. Firstly, I fully second Visor's argument above. Secondly, the descriptions of techniques do not qualify as entries within an instruction manual. The short and precise descriptions of the techniques, rightfully placed as footnotes, simply do not suffice as instructions. Rather they serve as a means to clarify the non-trivial core of 'DeFRaG' and its surrounding culture. Exactly what is expected from an encyclopedia entry. zeph (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I made a mistake. I looked solely at the notes section, and either missed the references, or mistook them for external links. Being written in Germany might have had something to do with it. Either way, that was my mistake. I'd appreciate it if someone would integrate those into the article, to avoid future confusion. All the references really should be in one section. I would do it, but I can't read German. The easiest way to do it might be to add a statement in the reception section, and cite them with the un-integrated references. I'll be back later today to withdraw the AFD. Randomran (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hooray :-) Thank you for looking into the matter, and, yes, you are right, we have to unify the references sections. Btw, the vote for deletion led me into search again, and I dug up yet another academical paper, which, I have to confess, I did not know yet. The authors use 'DeFRaG' as one of two examples for their core argument on design and appropriation: BOURMAUD, GAETAN AND XAVIER RETAUX. 2002. Rapports entre conception institutionnelle et conception dans l'usage. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 32. Proceedings of the 14th French-speaking conference on Human-computer interaction (Conférence Francophone sur l'Interaction Homme-Machine), pp. 137-144. Alas, this time it's in French ;-) I'll incorporate it as soon as possible. zeph (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for being understanding. Mistakes do happen. I hope you can add these references. It would be interesting to summarize a little bit of what they have to say about this mod too. Randomran (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are welcome, no problem. Meanwhile I got rid of the references section and converted its contents to in-text citations. More workover of the article, and not only of the formal kind, will follow. With your withdrawal the deletion issue is settled, I guess. Can the deletion-tag now be removed, please? zeph (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The issue is definitely settled. But I think an administrator has to be the one to close it. Don't worry, there's no way it will be deleted now. The tag will probably be removed within a day or two. Thanks again! Randomran (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. a notable and there are references which prove the notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above. MuZemike (talk) 20:05, 3 August 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.