Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaper bot

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper bot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, original research and lack of reliable sources or references. Visor (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Quake (video game) maybe? -Quartermaster (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For almost every popular game, including Quake, there are tons of custom fan-made stuff, such as maps, modifications, bots, etc. I don't see the reason to include this one in the Quake article. And what about other popular bots? Why not to write about them? There is no place in WP to list such things. Visor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably notable within the Quake community itself, however I couldn't find significant, reliable coverage (unlikely for just about any bot). --Teancum (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Teancum. The first two references are nowhere near reliable while the third one is inaccessible. –MuZemike 02:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article itself states why it is notable -- this was the first usable program of this kind to use i.a. machine learning combined with all its other features; and, a fortiori, it was thus a major breakthrough in bots in this context (FPS games) but also within AI itself. Why not write similar articles on other bots? A program that merely copies the Reaper bot and makes minor improvements in a game that already has proper AI functionality is not noteworthy. I find it completely unreasonable to delete the article merely due to poor references, there are thousands of poorly references articles that are not deleted by that criteria alone, it is widely known within the AI computer science community (as well as 'gamer' communities) that the Reaper bot was a breakthrough and is thus notable. Should it be deleted because it builds upon another work, i.e. Quake? Why? Remember that the core of the Reaper bot -- the AI -- is so distant from the work it uses to implement its AI, i.e. Quake (where AI in the stock product is completely non existent), that a similar argument could be used to claim all articles which describe programs building on Windows XP should be deleted, because there already is an article about Windows XP. As such I say we should find better references. Posix memalign (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good claim for notability if you can back it up with a reliable source. Removing poorly referenced material is perfectly reasonable as verifiability is a cornerstone policy of this encyclopedia. If you've seen other articles that have been kept through deletion discussion but are unverified, flag it up or let me know - it has no bearing on this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was, unfortunately, unable to find any reliable sources on this subject. From what I turned up there's unlikely anything verifiable to merge at this point either. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I concur with Arbitrarily0 that there's nothing verifiable to merge. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 20 July 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.