Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Palace Of Deceit: Dragon's Plight
- 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 smerge (slight merge) with Cliff Bleszinski. Only a slight merge is appropriate, given the size of the target article. Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Palace Of Deceit: Dragon's Plight[edit]
This is a non-notable game that the creator of the article argues should be included because it was the first game for its designer, who has gone on to fortune in the industry. The game already has coverage in the designer's article. In fact, that coverage provides 3 of the 4 Google hits[1] for the title of the game. This article fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. Erechtheus 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to Cliff Bleszinski.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 08:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Cliff Bleszinski after clearing out excessive plotstuff. I remember finding a demo on a compilation disc back in t'day, along with a thousand other non-notable games and demos.--Nydas 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Google has forgotten the game doesn't mean Wikipedia should forget it, too. Search Dare to Dream while you're at it; you won't get too many hits related to that game either. A Wikipedia article can keep an obscure piece of history from being forgotten. Somebody looking for information about the game will be thankful for a wikipedia article about it.
There was already a wikilink to Dragon's Plight in Bleszinski's article, which told me someone else wanted more information about the game, too. There is no "coverage" in that article; there is an empty link to it and passive mention of it. I just filled it in. It's part of Cliff Bleszinski's history. It was the first game he designed, which makes it as notable as Dare to Dream (his second) and Jazz Jackrabbit (his third).
I suppose the article could be merged with Dare to Dream's entry (the gameplay sections do overlap), but it doesn't seem necessary as they discuss two different games. Odds are someone else will come along and recommend the article be split. And it doesn't belong in Bleszinski's article because it's not about the man himself, it's about the game.
If someone else recommends Dragon's Plight be included in Bleszinski's article, or merged with Dare to Dream, I don't mind doing that. The information doesn't need to be deleted!--Tagenar 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Cliff Bleszinski. --Nishkid64 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tagenar. You know, he has a point. Remember, Wikipedia:Notability isn't an official policy, no matter how many people here in AfD consider it gospel. In this case, I think the historical significance of the article is worth at least equal coverage to the other two games. --Roninbk 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind Merging, but all three articles are currently unsourced. Just because it's hard to source doesn't mean that people should ignore WP:V, which is policy (I've heard the line "WP:N is not policy" many times, and let's just say there would be massive problems, starting with WP:NOT, if notability was totally ignored. However this is less relevant to this article, mostly because of the harder sourcing, which WP:N actually does take into account.) ColourBurst 23:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'n not advocating totally ignoring WP:N, but I have a hard time with nominations that use WP:N as their sole justification. Of course you're right about WP:V though. And after I think about it a bit more, I think merging the information from the three articles into the main, (including verifiable sources of course,) might result in a better article overall. Remember, just because it's harder doesn't mean it's impossible. --Roninbk 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge which three articles into which main article? There is no main article. Unless you mean merging Dare to Dream, Dragon's Plight and Bleszinski's entry into one? Why? These are separate topics; why merge them into one article when two articles are about games and one is about Cliff Bleszinski? Dare to Dream is part of Epic Games's release history and deserves its own page. Dragon's Plight I can understand the proposed merge because it's not Epic, but it's still a game Cliff Bleszinski designed. Doesn't that make it notable in some way? And if anyone wants sources to the articles, just play the games. All the information I wrote is taken directly from the games. In fact, all the info on all the pages I've read about Epic's early games is sourced from the games themselves. What else do you need?--Tagenar 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm proposing merging into the Bleszinski article. WP:V requires that articles be supported with credible third party (outside of Wikipedia) sources, preferably by other websites that you can link to, however books, newspapers and such can be used as well. The "just play the game" arguement doesn't stand because that would be considered Original Research which is also against policy. Trust me, while I can appreciate your love for the games, and I can sympathize with your desire for them not to fade into obscurity, Wikipedia is probably not the best place to champion that cause. When you can show some kind of independent coverage, then you can reintroduce the separate articles. --Roninbk 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge which three articles into which main article? There is no main article. Unless you mean merging Dare to Dream, Dragon's Plight and Bleszinski's entry into one? Why? These are separate topics; why merge them into one article when two articles are about games and one is about Cliff Bleszinski? Dare to Dream is part of Epic Games's release history and deserves its own page. Dragon's Plight I can understand the proposed merge because it's not Epic, but it's still a game Cliff Bleszinski designed. Doesn't that make it notable in some way? And if anyone wants sources to the articles, just play the games. All the information I wrote is taken directly from the games. In fact, all the info on all the pages I've read about Epic's early games is sourced from the games themselves. What else do you need?--Tagenar 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'n not advocating totally ignoring WP:N, but I have a hard time with nominations that use WP:N as their sole justification. Of course you're right about WP:V though. And after I think about it a bit more, I think merging the information from the three articles into the main, (including verifiable sources of course,) might result in a better article overall. Remember, just because it's harder doesn't mean it's impossible. --Roninbk 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasons for merging Dragon's Plight into Bleszinski's entry. The game was probably only important to his history, not gaming as a whole. Since I'm outnumbered, go ahead and merge it.
I'm not sure how it can fit. Maybe someone can think of a way to make it relevant to the designer and not to the game itself? I just wouldn't want the information deleted entirely. It still deserves a place, and if that place is not in its own article that's okay.--Tagenar 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimal merge - Most of the information here isn't worth merging, as its either a direct copy or not overly important. Just a couple mentions of the game in its creator's bio is enough. Wickethewok 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stupid edit conflict... Wanted to add these questions: I understand the need for WP:OR. All encyclopedias follow it, all of them need it, but isn't there a limit? Would someone who has watched, say, a newly released movie need to cite extra sources when writing a new article about it? Where would you go for an external source for a movie's content? Is using "watch the movie" as a source for its plot and characters considered original research, too? Where can you go for external sources on that? If that's origial research, then what's left to write about the movie? Same for games, especially old ones. I'm not trying to start a hair-splitting debate, nor do I disagree with WP:OR, but don't some things have to come from the article's subject itself?--Tagenar 00:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For a movie, especially nowadays, there is LOTS of information one can cite. IMDb, critic reviews, often the studio itself will have a website. Critics can do original research. We can't. All of our information has to come from outside Wikipedia. --Roninbk 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Beginning to see the problem and a better idea of how wikipedia works. Though I do have the game, I searched again and found this site. And also for DtD. You can't get any more third party than these :-) Is this credible enough? Both are very obscure games... I understand the logic behind the policy, it just seems wrong that the game itself can't be a source when it seems logical that this is the best source to use for information about the game (or movie, or anything).--Tagenar 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good start, might be enough to save the page. --Roninbk 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The movie or game itself absolutely can be used as a primary source, as long as the information is verifiable by a reasonable adult without specialist knowledge. Plot summaries are an excellent example. See WP:NOR. — brighterorange (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Beginning to see the problem and a better idea of how wikipedia works. Though I do have the game, I searched again and found this site. And also for DtD. You can't get any more third party than these :-) Is this credible enough? Both are very obscure games... I understand the logic behind the policy, it just seems wrong that the game itself can't be a source when it seems logical that this is the best source to use for information about the game (or movie, or anything).--Tagenar 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For a movie, especially nowadays, there is LOTS of information one can cite. IMDb, critic reviews, often the studio itself will have a website. Critics can do original research. We can't. All of our information has to come from outside Wikipedia. --Roninbk 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With reviews to back up the info on both games and reinforce their place in Bleszinski's history, does Dragon's Plight deserve its own article now? DtD and Dragon's Plight may not be notable to the history of gaming but they are notable to the author, and if these sources can be used to justify the information, they justify a Dragon's Plight article in Wikipedia. I recognize the difficulty of verifying information like this. I'd like to find something in the New York Times to use as a source, too, but at least this is something. I hope the sites I gave above can also be used to help Cliff's entry, too.
I believe it's all notable. Anyone looking for information on these games and/or on Bleszinski's early career will be glad for some details about the games themselves. (Now with a source to back the details up.) If the concensus is still to merge, at least there's a source to tie the game to the creator's history. Maybe it'll allow more than a one-sentence passing mention in his bio. But please reconsider merging in light of these potential sources.--Tagenar 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see anything new in the way of WP:RS. I'm not against merging, which does seem to be the consensus. Erechtheus 02:34, 21 September 2006 (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.