Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious 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 keep. Even considering the relative weakness of the two "oppose" opinions (which is another way to say "keep"), both Mable and Czar don't make any argument for deletion, and even the nomination isn't really presenting a strong policy-backed reason to delete. It's clear that this "keep" closure does not constitute endorsement of the entire article "as is" and heavy work will be necessary to improve the neutrality and accuracy (w/r/t sources) of the article. Czar's proposal to summarize it in the Glossary and redirect there might also merit further discussion on the talk page if work on the article itself doesn't look like it's gonna take place. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serious game[edit]

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

This appears on the face of it to be an attempt to promote a neologism. The article has been subject to spam editing for a long time, and most of the sources require WP:SYN to arrive at this title. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised this has had no participation so far. My impression is the same, that this is a forced neologism, and that some developers use it to distinguish their work from "regular" and "casual" games. Now, there are sources that use the term, so I doubt outright deletion is even under consideration, but if there is no in-depth, secondary source discussion of the concepts behind serious games, then the term might as well be succinctly summarized in the Glossary of video game terms and redirected there. czar 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there's a problem with the naming the page should be moved and not deleted. However from what I can see there are enough sources that warrant the page's title (as well as its existence in terms of notability). --Fixuture (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We counted the sources—we're asking what's substantial within them... czar 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Anything CZAR keeps requesting to be deleted proves he knows NOTHING about the game industry, it's a growing industry, and it's impossible to site all the sources. Serious Games is a coined term used globally & it's has Organizations built around it for Education, etc. For crying out loud CZAR can u back off the Game Dev topics. Using the Video Game Source list isn't reliable either...Kotaku doesn't doesn't feed the world on every little detail or has the time to report everything out there. Shhhesssh~! Can WE VOTE TO HAVE CZAR BLOCKED FROM TOUCHING GAME DEV CONTENT HERE!Xelzeta (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. You're meant to provide your view and a rationale for why the article should be kept or deleted based on its topic. You are not meant to attack other editors for nominating an article for deletion. Insulting another editor is also not seen as a credible argument for keeping an article. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning to a "keep". The term "serious game" gets a lot of coverage and is the subject of a lot of study. Looking at the 'further reading' section of this article, I personally think there is plenty of literature on this concept. I personally hate the term, but its notability feels hard to dismiss. That being said: because the majority of the sources in this article are papers, I have very little knowledge of how reliable they are. I personally feel unqualified for giving a judgement. An article like this does make me lean to "keep". ~Mable (chat) 18:29, 11 December 2016 (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.