Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deliantra (computer game)

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. discounting the WP:SPA Secret ^account 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deliantra (computer game)[edit]

Article shows no citations for independent, reliable coverage required for notability (WP:N), and has no third-party references for (WP:V). My original prod in October was contested on the grounds that the subject is of historical interest, however see the comments on my talk page here - User talk:Marasmusine#Fishy Deliantra claims - these claims seem to be confused with Crossfire (computer game) (itself of dubious notability, but that's a different matter.) Marasmusine 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I still think it is notable for the reasons stated in the discussion page. Since no original Crossfire developers are around (being such an old project this is no surprise), it is hard to tell which of the two Crossfires is more original (both were named Crossfire intiially). The fact that one projetc renamed itself to avoid further confusion should not be held against it, the term "fishy" is not appropriate. Both this and crossfire are doubtlessly notable for their influence on realtime rpg gaming in general (but maybe the pages should be merged). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that Deliantra is a fork of Crossfire, born in 2006 from the work of a minority of developers. The first versions of the Deliantra Wikipedia page, written by one of the main Deliantra's contributors, explicitely confirm this by saying The project started in May 2006 and had constantly progress since then. It is well possible that Deliantra influenced the gaming scene after that date, but this has yet to be proven.80.201.137.68 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also think that the project is notable due to it's heritage but also because it is after all one of

the very few really free (free as in free software) MMORPGs around that are still very active. There was considerable development (technical enhancements on the engine, balancement of the game data, addition of new content) for the last 2 years. It so represents a notable continuation of a very old project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmex (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments do not address the issue of the article not meeting our verifiability policity and notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability, not the guidelines. The guidelines itself say that they are not set in stone and that there are other reasons for an article being notable. The goal is to verify the notability of the article, not to follow the guidelines as if they were law (at least thats actually written on the page, and also why its called a guideline). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, instead of the guideline of "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", you wish to claim that Deliantra is noteworthy because it was influential, one of few free MMORPGs that are still active, and is a continuation of an old project. If we agree to accept that, then those points will still need backing up with reliable, third-party references, per WP:V, which is not a guideline but one of Wikipedia's core policies. Marasmusine (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: the influence of Deliantra over the gaming scene has not been proven so far; those claims would benefit from being backed up by facts. Second: other games like Daimonin got their Wikipedia webpage removed, despite being a quite active free MMORPG - so it is fair policy to apply the same rules to everybody. Finally, being a fork of a long-standing project doesn't make one worthy of an article.80.201.137.68 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Daimonin (for example) is not free: the content is closed, as is the case with most other "free" mmorpgs, they are only partially free (code, usually not content). Also, the fatc that its free is easily verifiable by its soruce license or by checking existing third-party references like happypenguin or freshmeat, both of which list it as free. It seems all you do is claim its not verifiable, when in fatc it actually is, from the article. Verifiability is not a problem, and remember that "the othe rpage was alos removed" is not a valid point in a deletion discussion. If any of the mentioned third-party sources are missing from the article I can easily enough add them to the list of external links.
1 - That the in-game content of Daimonin's main server is not publicely available is irrelevant - the software code itself is, and so are the tools to create content; it is like saying koffice is not free software because it can be used to create and display documents whose content is not free. Also note that I do not believe Wikipedia should give different value for free and non-free software regarding notability: a (modern) encyclopedia should strive to stay as neutral as possible in its information selection process.

2 - I note that your long answer didn't address points one and three, for a timeframe for which Deliantra was unquestionably a separate project from its "ancestor" (thus since early/mid 2006 if I'm correctly reading); if you can easily add third-party sources clearing those two points, please do so.81.169.96.69 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the freeness of the game as whole it is of course veryrelevant that the content is closed: That part of the game is free is irrelevant: the game as a whole isn't, you cannot play it with the free parts alone, and thats quite a significant difference to games that are free as a whole. As for point two, the point is not giving free software or content higher priority, the point is that its a very rare game in that it is fully free, which is the absolute exception (you will be hard pressed to find _any_ other game which is both fully free and is also fully playable and developed into a real game, as opposed to some demo world). I also do not understand what is unclear regarding any timeframes - the project got another name so it doesn't conflict with the many other things named "crossfire" (such as ATIs crossfire technology). It has not become a separate project from its own, it still understands its old data files and it still talks to clients written when it was named differently, it was just renamed (a few times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable secondary sources. Someone another (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have reformatted the references for the article to make it clearer what the origins and publishers of them are. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Crossfire (computer game). Crossfire is certainly notable, but this 2006 fork of its code does not appear to be. --McGeddon (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (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.