Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oolite (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 keep. John254 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oolite (computer game)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article on clone "based in spirit" on Elite, lacks a claim to notability and lacks significant secondary references. A single notable source with a brief mention does not satisfy WP:N Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Marty, I did a thorough search for reviews, articles, etc. regarding this game and haven't found any in significant sources aside from the one in Linux Format magazine. Keep - Now that the Macworld article was found, that's enough for me. -- Atama ^chat 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — I could not find any, either. MuZemike (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak keep, as I did miss the Linux Format article. However, that is the only verifiable article that I see in the bunch. It still has a long way to go. The Macworld UK is iffy at best as far as WP:V is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you mean "The Macworld UK is iffy"? -- ArchSaur 9:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, nom spin statement "brief mention" is incorrect, a review in print publication is quite beyond normal clone coverage. MURGH ^disc. 08:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So? "Beyond normal clone coverage"... Where is "clone coverage" in WP:N? For something to be notable, it must have significant coverage, and multiple sources are preferred. While that one page article in Linux Format is nice, it's not enough to stand on its own. -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep (MrStalker ^(talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)). As Murgh stated the subject has some notability, although I admit it's rather thin. Better notability should be established. (Btw, if the article is kept it should be moved to "Oolite (video game)" per WP:VG/NAME.) --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game is notable among Linux platform games. ArchSaur 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is it? What references do you have to establish this, or is this your own original research? -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It is the truth, not any kind of "research" whatsoever. Simple Googling for Oolite proves it immidiately. I'm curious why did you post a link to "original research" article that claims "wikipedia doesn't publish original researches", because I don't try to publish any 'research', do I? -- ArchSaur 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — ArchSaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Comment - Googling Oolite proves that there is a version that will work on Linux, but I don't see anything to suggest that it's 'notable among Linux platform games', anymore so than a Linux version of Minesweeper would be notable among Linux puzzle games. Stating as such without citing a source is, you guessed it, original research. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Murgh and ArchSaur - the game has enough notability as I did a search and found many articles in the online gaming magazines about this game. -- Thyx 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — Thyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Would you mind sharing these, or are we supposed to take your word for it? -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have already added some of them (but not all) to the article. If it is still not enough for you I can add more -- Thyx 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oolite is mentioned in Retro Gamer issue 47, 2008, p.25, in a major article on Elite, in the "Elite A-Z": "O is for Oolite – Excellent homage to Elite that started off life as an OpenGL Mac OS X title. It was created by Giles Williams.". -- Scotliterary (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:N states that to establish notability, sources address the subject directly in detail. What you list barely mentions Oolite, and it's an article about a different game, Elite. -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Oolite is reviewed as a game in its own right, and listed as an "Editor's Choice", in Macworld, 8 January 2007, available online here. A longer review of Oolite, along with a playing guide, was published on the online magazine PCBurn ("Linux Hardware Reviews and Linux Games"). Although PCBurn's review is no longer available on the magazine's website it can still be found in the web archive, here. -- Scotliterary (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm going to concede. Some of the links that people have published are from web sites with questionable reliability/notability, but Macworld is probably the biggest Macintosh magazine in the world. Being Editor's Choice in that magazine, when combined with Linux Format (another reputable magazine) seems to satisfy WP:N. We'd better make sure to have that Macworld review in the article as well. -- Atama ^chat 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please be advised that canvasing is not allowed, as was done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgungfu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 August 2008
- Comment - Why do you think it was the canvasing? Canvasing states for "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". But this message was not send (and it was not intended to be sent) to the Wikipedians but rather it was posted on the Oolite official forum (according to the rules of that forum). And btw Wgungfu would you mind next time to sign your comment as anonymous comments create disorder. Thank you in advance -- Thyx 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looks like a friendly notice to me. No signs/proves threre were "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion". -- ArchSaur 16:34, August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment You guys are new here, in fact your only contributions to WP are in regards to this AFD in direct cause of the post titled "...And now they want the Oolite entry removed from Wikipedia". So I understand that you're not being aware of how policy works and is interpreted here. The moment you came here and posted on Wikipedia, you became a wikipedian. Posting on discussion forums to try and influence an AFD is canvasing, and is looked down on. That posting, its title, etc. is designed to bring people - who had not been a part of Wikipedia before - in to this for the purpose of the AFD. You two are prime examples of that. Friendly or not is not the issue. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment New? What are you talking about? I've been registered since December 2007. And I haven't seen the forum post (I'm not even registered on that forum) before it was mentioned here. -- ArchSaur 8:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      - Comment - You were registered December 28, 2008. Some people are lurkers long before they contribute, I actually was too, though I started contributing first as an anonymous IP and then created my account after. You'll have to forgive the suspicions (Wikipedia does have an assume good faith policy) but some of us were involved in another recent deletion discussion of an article for a similar game, in which someone was canvassing and suddenly a number of people created accounts or posted anonymously to support the game. That was a clear case of canvassing though, where there was harsh language about Wikipedia and the nominators on the forum and the new accounts had names identical to the forum accounts. In my eyes this isn't as clear a case, in fact on the forum where someone announced this AfD discussion, there was debate over whether or not this game really was notable enough. -- Atama ^chat 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Man, December 2008 is a future! (-: It's December 2007 when I registered. Ok, I understand you, just had an unpleasant "presumption of guilt" feeling because of untrue accusal of "just registered for this discussion only". -- ArchSaur (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is why we are supposed to look at user contributions and not necessarily when the account was started. Unfortunately, the only contribs you have made have been pertaining to this discussion, and that is something closing admins can look at when this discussion ends. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Yes I'm new here. I didn't come here from the Oolite forum, but rather I was searching for 'Oolite alien items' in the Google yesterday and WP:VG/D link was on the first search page. That interested me a lot and I followed here. Thus I'm not the "prime examples of" canvassing influence as you have written 'cause I found the Oolite forum discussion only after you have posted link to it (Btw how do you find that link? Are you the member of the Oolite forum?) -- Thyx 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pleasd read this portion of WP:AFD: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment As I wrote above I am new here (as a contributor, but not as wiki user). But it doesn't automatically mean that my reccomendation was done in bad faith, does it? When I found this discussion I decided to help to improve the Oolite article itself and after I did it I wrote my opinion on the discussion board (as you can see I have added 3 new references to the article and described some interesting specific of the MacOS' version of the game). So now please tell me your opinion, did I do it in bad faith or good? Thanks -- Thyx 10:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is quoted up there mentions nothing about good or bad faith. Unless something an action malicious or otherwise fishy (which wasn't), we always assume good faith in editing articles. Your contributions are always welcome. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been established. --Frodet (talk) 17:44, 6 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.